Decodo vs Oxylabs
Decodo vs Oxylabs
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
Oxylabs
96.2%vs97.8%
Higher success rate; concurrency Unlimited / Unlimited
Low latency
Oxylabs
1.56svs1.31s
250 ms difference at p50
Cost-sensitive
Decodo
$1.46vs$2.51
72.1% gap per successful request
Small project
Decodo
$29vs$49
Lowest committed plan
| Metric | Decodo | Oxylabs | Difference · A / B |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | |||
| Success rate | 96.2% | 97.8% | Oxylabs +1.6 pt |
| p50 latency | 1.56s | 1.31s | Oxylabs 250 ms faster |
| p95 latency | 4.10s | 3.40s | Oxylabs 700 ms faster |
| Error rate | 3.8% | 2.2% | Oxylabs · 1.6% lower |
| Reliability score | 84 | 90 | Oxylabs +6 |
| Stability σ 30d | 0.7% | 0.3% | Oxylabs · 0.4% lower |
| Cost | |||
| List price / 1k requests | $1.40 | $2.45 | Decodo · $1.05 lower |
| Cost / 1k successful | $1.46 | $2.51 | 72.1% gap |
| Minimum monthly plan | $29 | $49 | Decodo · $20 lower |
| JS rendering surcharge | 2.5× | 2.0× | Oxylabs · 0.5× lower |
| Coverage | |||
| Countries | 195 | 195 | Equal in this sample |
| Concurrency | Unlimited | Unlimited | Same sample limit |
| JS rendering | Yes | Yes | Same sample capability |
| Browser API (CDP) | — | — | Same sample capability |
| Developer | |||
| API / SDKs | Not specified | Not specified | Not available in the canonical dataset |
| MCP server | — | Yes | Oxylabs supports this in the sample |
| Structured extraction | — | Yes | Oxylabs 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
96.2%97.8%
Oxylabs +1.6 pt
p50 latency
1.56s1.31s
Oxylabs 250 ms faster
p95 latency
4.10s3.40s
Oxylabs 700 ms faster
Stability σ 30d
0.7%0.3%
Oxylabs · 0.4% lower
Cost
Cost / 1k successful
$1.46$2.51
72.1% gap
Minimum monthly plan
$29$49
Decodo · $20 lower
JS rendering surcharge
2.5×2.0×
Oxylabs · 0.5× lower
Coverage
Concurrency
UnlimitedUnlimited
Same sample limit
JS rendering
YesYes
Same sample capability
Browser API (CDP)
——
Same sample capability
Developer
MCP server
—Yes
Oxylabs supports this in the sample
Structured extraction
—Yes
Oxylabs 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.