Oxylabs vs Decodo: Performance Benchmarks & Pricing

updated on Mar 11, 2026

Based on our benchmarks, Oxylabs may be better suited for large-scale search engine scraping, while Decodo offers comparable performance across residential and mobile proxy use cases.

Both providers deliver high-performance proxy infrastructure, with Oxylabs performing better for search engine scraping while Decodo remains competitive across proxy-based workloads.

Performance evaluation: Oxylabs vs Decodo

To evaluate the real-world performance of Oxylabs and Decodo, we conducted benchmark tests to measure the request success rate and average response time.

1. Scraping API performance

Loading Chart

SERP scraping: Oxylabs appears slightly more reliable for search engine scraping workloads that require robust anti-blocking infrastructure.

Oxylabs consistently achieved higher success rates on most test days.
Decodo experienced larger fluctuations, including one significant drop.
Both providers maintained success rates above ~80% most of the time.

Crunchbase scraping: For standard website scraping tasks, both providers perform similarly, with no consistent winner. Crunchbase represents a different scraping scenario, with site-level protections rather than search-engine protections.

Performance between the two providers was very close.
Decodo occasionally achieved higher peak success rates.

2. Scraping API response time

Response time is important when scraping large datasets. For scraping APIs, speed differences are minor, so the success rate becomes a more important differentiator.

Response times were relatively similar across providers.
Decodo showed slightly faster responses on some days.
Oxylabs maintained more stable response times overall.

2. Proxy network performance

Success rate:

Response time:

Web unblocker:

Unblocker APIs rely heavily on the target website’s defenses, so performance can fluctuate across test periods.

Success rate:

Both providers achieved moderate success rates (~40–53%).
Decodo slightly outperformed Oxylabs on average.

Response time:

Unblocker APIs were slower due to additional processing.
Oxylabs showed slightly lower response times in several tests.

Residential proxy:

Residential proxy networks from Oxylabs and Decodo appear comparable in reliability.

Success rate:

Success rates were very similar between providers.
Both maintained stable performance between ~55–70%.

Response time:

Response times averaged ~2.2–3.4 seconds.
Both providers showed similar latency patterns.

Mobile proxy:

Mobile proxies remain the most reliable proxy type due to their strong legitimacy signals.

Success rate:

Both providers achieved very high success rates (~90–99%).
Differences between providers were minimal.

Response time:

Both providers averaged ~1.7–2.3 seconds.
Performance was nearly identical.

Oxylabs vs Decodo: Which one should you choose?

Our benchmarks highlight several performance differences between Oxylabs and Decodo across scraping APIs and proxy networks. While both providers deliver strong infrastructure, the results suggest slightly different strengths depending on the use case.

Oxylabs strengths

Higher success rates in SERP scraping:

In our SERP scraping benchmarks, Oxylabs consistently achieved higher success rates than Decodo. Search engines are among the most difficult targets to scrape due to advanced anti-bot systems, including CAPTCHA challenges, fingerprinting, and IP reputation checks.

Oxylabs’ higher success rate indicates that its scraping infrastructure is particularly optimized for collecting search engine data. This likely reflects stronger request routing, more advanced anti-detection mechanisms, and better proxy rotation strategies.

More stable response times:

Across several benchmarks, Oxylabs demonstrated slightly more consistent response times compared to Decodo. While the average latency between providers was similar, Oxylabs showed fewer large spikes during the test period.

Response time stability is important for applications that require:

High-frequency scraping
Large-scale data collection pipelines
Automated monitoring systems

Strong scraping infrastructure:

Overall benchmark results suggest that Oxylabs has a particularly strong infrastructure for complex scraping workloads. This is reflected in the combination of high success rates and consistent performance across difficult targets.

Oxylabs has historically focused on enterprise-scale data collection solutions, which may explain its stronger performance in scenarios involving highly protected websites or search engines.

Decodo strengths

Competitive proxy success rates:

Across residential and mobile proxy benchmarks, Decodo performed similarly to Oxylabs. Success rates for these proxy types remained relatively stable and close between providers during the testing period.

This suggests that Decodo maintains a large and reliable proxy pool, capable of supporting common use cases such as:

Web scraping
Market research
Social media monitoring

Slight advantage in web unblocker success rate:

In our web unblocker benchmarks, Decodo achieved slightly higher average success rates than Oxylabs. Unblocker APIs are designed to automatically bypass anti-bot protections by managing proxies, headers, and browser behavior.

While both providers showed moderate success rates, Decodo demonstrated a small performance advantage in several test days. This may indicate effective request orchestration and proxy routing for certain targets.

However, unblocker performance can vary significantly depending on the target website and its anti-bot configuration.

Comparable proxy network performance:

Across residential and mobile proxy tests, Decodo’s network showed performance patterns similar to Oxylabs, both in success rates and response times.

Mobile proxies, in particular, performed very well for both providers, with success rates frequently exceeding 90%. This reflects the inherent reliability of mobile IPs, which are generally trusted by websites because they are associated with real mobile networks.

Overall, the benchmark results suggest that Decodo’s proxy network is competitive with Oxylabs in terms of reliability and speed, especially for standard proxy use cases.

Types of proxies offered

Decodo proxy network and features

Residential:

The residential proxy network supports HTTP(s) and SOCKS5 protocols. You can select the IPs according to specific regions such as country, city, zip code, or even by mobile network provider.

Additionally, it is possible to target all 50 states in the US. You can either change IPs with each request or maintain the same IP for up to 30 minutes.

Users can rotate IPs with each request or maintain sticky sessions for up to 30 minutes. If there are no requests within a 60-second interval, the system is programmed to automatically switch to a new IP address.

Datacenter:

The datacenter proxy pool includes private and shared datacenter IP addresses sourced from US and European data centers.

Decodo provides two pricing structures for datacenter proxies: a pay-per-IP option and a pay-per-GB option. The pay-per-IP model features dedicated proxies in selected global locations and allows customers to specify their desired traffic volume, with charges based on the number of IPs and the bandwidth used.

The pay-per-GB model provides access to a shared global IP pool, with costs incurred based on the amount of bandwidth consumed. Both models support rotating or static sessions.

Mobile:

Mobile proxies support OS filtering, allowing users to select and use mobile IPs associated with a specific operating system. You can select mobile proxy IP addresses that are associated with a specific city.

Static residential proxies (ISP):

The ISP pool provides IP addresses located in the United States, Hong Kong, France, and Canada with country-level targeting. ISP proxies are compatible with tools that support HTTP(S) proxy configuration.

Oxylabs proxy network and features

Residential:

Oxylabs offers regular and next-generation residential proxies with different capabilities and offerings. The pricing model for Next-Gen Residential proxies is based on traffic volume, with charges applied only to requests successfully fulfilled during data collection.

Mobile:

Residential and mobile proxies allow you to choose a proxy location by geographical coordinates. The mobile proxy pool includes shared IP addresses. When you make a request using a mobile proxy IP, it becomes dedicated to your use for the duration of that session.

Datacenter (shared & dedicated): Oxylabs offers millions of datacenter IPs across multiple global locations.

ISP & rotating ISP: There are 100,000 static IPs and 360,000 rotating static IPs available from 20 different locations. Out of the rotating IPs, 270,000 are sourced from the US pool.

Decodo pricing

Decodo offers flexible pricing models depending on the proxy type and traffic usage.

Residential proxies

Decodo residential proxies use bandwidth-based pricing with both subscription and pay-as-you-go options.

Typical pricing ranges:

~$3.75/GB for small plans (3 GB)
~$2–$3/GB for larger plans
~$4/GB for pay-as-you-go traffic

Decodo also provides:

3-day trial with 100MB traffic
flexible Wallet-based pay-as-you-go usage

Mobile proxies

Mobile proxy pricing typically starts around:

~$8/GB for smaller plans

Datacenter proxies

Decodo datacenter proxies are priced using two models:

Pay-per-IP plans
Bandwidth-based plans (pay-per-GB)

Costs vary depending on the number of IPs and selected locations.

Oxylabs pricing

Oxylabs offers usage-based pricing with enterprise-oriented plans and custom pricing for large-scale deployments.

Residential proxies

Oxylabs residential proxy pricing typically starts around:

~$4/GB pay-as-you-go
~$3–$3.5/GB for monthly plans
~$2/GB or lower for large enterprise volumes

Mobile proxies

Mobile proxies generally start around:

~$9/GB for entry-level plans.

Datacenter proxies

Datacenter proxies are usually priced per IP.

Typical entry pricing:

~$12/month for 10 IPs for shared datacenter proxies.

Benchmark methodology

Our tests simulate real-world data-collection workloads, including SERP and website scraping, and proxy-based requests across different proxy types.

Since the full benchmarking process is documented in our dedicated benchmark reports, this section summarizes the key aspects of our methodology.

Test scale and frequency

Our benchmarking system runs automated tests across all monitored vendors continuously. Requests are executed every five minutes to capture variations in proxy pool quality and stability over time.

The benchmarks include multiple proxy types and web scraping environments, including: