Apify vs Decodo
Apify vs Decodo
vs
vs
Independent measurementDemo dataFetchGauge probes · self-funded accounts · no vendor-supplied dataMethodology v2.3 →
14 min ago · hourly
n = 1,284 / run · 924,480 / 30D
Tokyo (ap-northeast-1)
Scraping API · identical target list
JS off · 50 conc · 30s timeout · 3 retries
50 e-commerce domains
Simulated protocol · all figures and freshness timestamps are fixtures, not real measurements.
Winner by workload · from stored runs
Large-scale scraping
Decodo
95.7%vs96.2%
Higher success rate; concurrency 32 / Unlimited
Low latency
Decodo
2.10svs1.56s
540 ms difference at p50
Cost-sensitive
Apify
$1.25vs$1.46
16.1% gap per successful request
Small project
Decodo
$49vs$29
Lowest committed plan
| Metric | Apify | Decodo | Difference · A / B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | |||
| Success rate | 95.7% | 96.2% | Decodo +0.5 pt |
| p50 latency | 2.10s | 1.56s | Decodo 540 ms faster |
| p95 latency | 5.20s | 4.10s | Decodo 1100 ms faster |
| Error rate | 4.3% | 3.8% | Decodo · 0.5% lower |
| Reliability score | 81 | 84 | Decodo +3 |
| Stability σ 30d | 1.2% | 0.7% | Decodo · 0.5% lower |
| Cost | |||
| List price / 1k requests | $1.20 | $1.40 | Apify · $0.20 lower |
| Cost / 1k successful | $1.25 | $1.46 | 16.1% gap |
| Minimum monthly plan | $49 | $29 | Decodo · $20 lower |
| JS rendering surcharge | 3.0× | 2.5× | Decodo · 0.5× lower |
| Coverage | |||
| Countries | 150 | 195 | Decodo · 45 higher |
| Concurrency | 32 | Unlimited | Higher concurrency shown in bold |
| JS rendering | Yes | Yes | Same sample capability |
| Browser API (CDP) | Yes | — | Apify supports this in the sample |
| Developer | |||
| API / SDKs | Not specified | Not specified | Not available in the canonical dataset |
| MCP server | Yes | — | Apify supports this in the sample |
| Structured extraction | Yes | — | Apify supports this in the sample |
| Docs quality | Not specified | Not specified | Not available in the canonical dataset |
| Support | |||
| SLA | Not specified | Not specified | Not available in the canonical dataset |
| Support channels | Not specified | Not specified | Not available in the canonical dataset |
Bold = better between A and B. Cost / 1k ok = list price ÷ sample success rate.Methodology →
Performance
Success rate
95.7%96.2%
Decodo +0.5 pt
p50 latency
2.10s1.56s
Decodo 540 ms faster
p95 latency
5.20s4.10s
Decodo 1100 ms faster
Stability σ 30d
1.2%0.7%
Decodo · 0.5% lower
Cost
Cost / 1k successful
$1.25$1.46
16.1% gap
Minimum monthly plan
$49$29
Decodo · $20 lower
JS rendering surcharge
3.0×2.5×
Decodo · 0.5× lower
Coverage
Concurrency
32Unlimited
Higher concurrency shown in bold
JS rendering
YesYes
Same sample capability
Browser API (CDP)
Yes—
Apify supports this in the sample
Developer
MCP server
Yes—
Apify supports this in the sample
Structured extraction
Yes—
Apify supports this in the sample
Support
SLA
Not specifiedNot specified
Not available in the canonical dataset
Success rate · 30D
p50 latency · 30Dseconds
Region and workload labels describe the sample scenario. JS-heavy applies the canonical JS penalty. Unspecified capabilities have no winner.
Affiliate links · disclosure. Never affect scores.