◆ COMPARE

rpc edge vs Nozomi

Nozomi is a serious transaction sender with a fair pricing model - you tip only when you land. But it's write-only. Your bot still buys its eyes somewhere else, and the loop between the two vendors is where latency hides.

Get Started →View pricing →

◆ THE HONEST READ

Two strong providers, different jobs.

We build for one job - the latency-critical trading path. Temporal's Nozomi solves a broader set of problems. Here is the fair read of where each one fits.

rpc edge

Built for one job: the trading and HFT niche. The shortest, most predictable path between the cluster and a strategy.

Read and write from the same box: decoded shreds and Yellowstone gRPC feed the sender in one rack. Nozomi ships the write half only - the see-decide-land loop crosses vendor and network boundaries before your transaction ever leaves.
No application form: the 15-day vetted trial issues access without a Typeform queue, and paid plans are self-serve in USDC.
Predictable cost under volume: flat $249 / $499 plans instead of per-transaction tips that scale linearly with your send rate and spike with tip-floor competition.
Our proof is raw and reproducible: the published Frankfurt run includes full percentile tables and tail latency. Nozomi's 'fastest' claim is self-reported, and the only public head-to-head (run by a competitor) placed it second.

Temporal's Nozomi

Nozomi, by Temporal, is a low-latency Solana transaction-landing service: pay-per-transaction tips (minimum 0.001 SOL) charged only on successful landing, 9 bare-metal regions, MEV-protect keys, a live public dashboard of landed volume and latency, and first-class presence in the community relayer-adapter SDKs. Access is gated by an approval form.

// where Nozomi is genuinely strong

Pay-only-on-landing is honest risk-reversal: no subscription, no landing means no tip. For low-volume or bursty senders this can be very cheap.
Real scale, shown live: a public dashboard streaming per-region landed volume and latency percentiles - proof-as-product that few competitors match.
9 bare-metal regions with custom hardware, staked connections, and Jito bundle routing, plus MEV-protect key options.
Default presence in trading stacks: wired into the community relayer-adapter SDKs, so bots reach it out of the box.

◆ SIDE BY SIDE

rpc edge vs Nozomi, by dimension.

A table flattens nuance - read it alongside the profiles above. Every cell is publicly known architecture and positioning, with no invented numbers.

Feature comparison of rpc edge and Temporal's Nozomi across infrastructure dimensions.
Dimension	rpc edge	Nozomi
Center of gravity	Co-located read + write loop	Write-only transaction landing
Data / streaming product	Decoded shreds + Yellowstone gRPC included	None productized - bring your own data vendor
Transaction sending	Included, co-located with the read path	Core product, 9 regions
Pricing model	Flat $249 / $499, USDC	Tip per landed tx, min 0.001 SOL
Cost at high volume	Flat, bandwidth-metered	Scales per transaction with tips
Access	Self-serve, 15-day vetted trial, no card	Approval-gated via application form
Live proof	Published raw benchmark run	Live public dashboard of landings
MEV protection	Route policy on the sender	Optional MEV-protect keys
Best fit	Bots that need eyes and hands in one place	Teams with a data stack that just need landing

◆ WHEN TO CHOOSE WHICH

Match the tool to the job.

Choose rpc edge if…

Choose rpc edge when the whole loop is the product: you want first-seen data and the sender co-located so nothing crosses a vendor seam, flat costs you can model at volume, and access today without an approval queue.

Choose Nozomi if…

Choose Nozomi if your read stack already exists and you only need landing: the pay-on-landing model means you risk nothing on unlanded transactions, the dashboard shows you exactly what you're getting, and it's already wired into most bot tooling.

// not mutually exclusive - many teams run both, one for the product surface and one for the latency-critical path.

Frequently asked questions

Is Nozomi faster at landing transactions than rpc edge?

We haven't benchmarked head-to-head, so we won't claim either way. Nozomi self-reports same-slot inclusion at median; the one public third-party benchmark (run by a competitor, bloXroute) placed Nozomi second. Our published number is our own end-to-end run: p50 104ms submit to first-seen from Frankfurt, raw data linked. Measure both with your flow.

Which costs less?

It depends entirely on volume. Nozomi charges a minimum 0.001 SOL tip per landed transaction - at low volume that can beat any subscription. At sustained bot volume, per-transaction tips compound while a flat $249/mo plan doesn't. Do the multiplication on your own send rate.

Can I use Nozomi for sending and rpc edge for data?

Yes, and some teams will. But the argument for co-location is that the decide-and-send hop is the latency you can actually remove: when the stream and the sender share a rack, your signal never rides the public internet between vendors. Splitting the stack reintroduces exactly that seam.

How fast can I start on each?

Nozomi requires an access application via a form, then issues an API key. rpc edge's 15-day vetted trial is requested through Telegram and needs no card; paid plans are self-serve in USDC. Both are fast once approved - the difference is the gate.

◆ GET ACCESS

Benchmark rpc edge against Nozomi.

Nozomi is a credible sender with honest pricing mechanics. If landing is your only gap, it's a fair choice. If your edge depends on seeing first and acting from the same box, that's the product we built. Fifteen days, no card, your own benchmark.

Get Started →Talk to the infra team →

WHERE rpc edge WINS

Data / streaming product
Cost at high volume
Access