Quick performance test comparing these 4 players:

* Google: 8.8.8.8 * Quad9.com: 9.9.9.9 * http://OpenDNS.com: 208.67.222.222 * https://CleanBrowsing.org: 185.228.168.168

Results:

  New York:
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=1.62 ms
  64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=0.924 ms
  64 bytes from 208.67.222.222: icmp_seq=2 ttl=60 time=1.18 ms
  64 bytes from 185.228.168.168: icmp_seq=2 ttl=57 time=1.93 ms

  Montreal:
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=55 time=13.0 ms
  64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=16.7 ms
  64 bytes from 208.67.222.222: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=16.5 ms
  64 bytes from 185.228.168.168: icmp_seq=2 ttl=50 time=9.18 ms

  Dallas:
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=61 time=1.09 ms
  64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=29.8 ms
  64 bytes from 208.67.222.222: icmp_seq=1 ttl=58 time=1.03 ms
  64 bytes from 185.228.168.168: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=1.29 ms

  Paris:
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=4.61 ms
  64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=6.71 ms
  64 bytes from 208.67.222.222: icmp_seq=2 ttl=56 time=4.60 ms
  64 bytes from 185.228.168.168: icmp_seq=2 ttl=54 time=3.85 ms

  Tokyo:
  64 bytes from 8.8.8.8: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=1.10 ms
  64 bytes from 9.9.9.9: icmp_seq=1 ttl=55 time=65.7 ms
  64 bytes from 208.67.222.222: icmp_seq=1 ttl=57 time=1.57 ms
  64 bytes from 185.228.168.168: icmp_seq=1 ttl=59 time=0.551 ms

Only New York and Paris were close. Their performance in Tokyo & Dallas were sub optimal. OpenDNS has a much better performance and closer to Google than quad9.

But I will still try it out and hope they keep supporting it.