MagicEden Runes vs OpenSea
MagicEden Runes wins on measured health — 10/10 against 8.76/10. Note the coverage gap: we measured 42% of the criteria for MagicEden Runes and 100% for OpenSea. Some of that gap is the finding — a service that publishes less can be measured less.
Last collection 2026-08-25: probed 252 services, measured 233, over a 90-day window.
| Measured | MagicEden Runes | OpenSea |
|---|---|---|
| Status now | Operational | Operational |
| Score On what we could measure: 42% of the criteria weight for MagicEden Runes, 100% for OpenSea. | 10/10 | 8.76/10 |
| Age | — | 9.7 yr |
| Latency (our probe) | 452 ms | 342 ms |
| Median fix | — | 334 min |
| Status feed | statuspage | statuspage |
MagicEden Runes
10 / 1042% measuredNo documented launch or listing date to measure age from.
Measured 452 ms, but at a different surface from the rest of this category — not comparable, so shown as context, not scored.
Publishes a machine-readable incident archive (statuspage) — its whole record can be checked by anyone, including against us.
No incidents at all in the 90 days its feed covers — we read the feed and it is empty.
OpenSea
8.76 / 10100% measuredLive 9.7 yr (since founding (2017), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
Median 342 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
Publishes a machine-readable incident archive (statuspage) — its whole record can be checked by anyone, including against us.
Median 334 min from published report to resolution across 1 logged incidents. Scored on repair speed, not on how many it logged.
Incident repair time: Median 334 min from published report to resolution across 1 logged incidents. Scored on repair speed, not on how many it logged.
No affiliate links or ads anywhere on this site. How this is funded · Methodology · Full nft marketplaces ranking