Blockdaemon vs Kiln
Blockdaemon wins on measured health — 10/10 against 9.73/10.
Last collection 2026-08-25: probed 252 services, measured 233, over a 90-day window.
| Measured | Blockdaemon | Kiln |
|---|---|---|
| Status now | Operational | Operational |
| Score On what we could measure: 52% of the criteria weight for Blockdaemon, 52% for Kiln. | 10/10 | 9.73/10 |
| Value locked | — | — |
| Audits | — | — |
| Age | 9.7 yr | 5.6 yr |
| Latency (our probe) | 47 ms | 266 ms |
| Status feed | statuspage | statuspage |
Blockdaemon
10 / 1052% measuredNo public on-chain value to measure — not a smart-contract service, or not tracked by DefiLlama.
Live 9.7 yr (since founding (2017), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
No audit data — no smart-contract surface to audit, or none published to DefiLlama.
Publishes a machine-readable incident archive (statuspage) — its whole record can be checked by anyone, including against us.
Median 47 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
Kiln
9.73 / 1052% measuredNo public on-chain value to measure — not a smart-contract service, or not tracked by DefiLlama.
Live 5.6 yr (since founding (2021), public record). Most failures happen young, so time survived is real signal.
No audit data — no smart-contract surface to audit, or none published to DefiLlama.
Publishes a machine-readable incident archive (statuspage) — its whole record can be checked by anyone, including against us.
Median 266 ms to first byte from the live interface, our own probe, slowest sample discarded, single location. Compared only within this category.
No affiliate links or ads anywhere on this site. How this is funded · Methodology · Full staking platforms ranking