NetNut vs Oxylabs: a Side-by-Side Feature Comparison
NetNut 8.0 vs. Oxylabs 9.3
|Pool size||0.5M residential IPs||30M residential IPs|
|Authorization method||Credentials||Credentials and whitelisted IPs|
|Number of users||Unlimited||Unlimited|
|Protocols||HTTP, HTTPS||HTTP, HTTPS|
In the table above we see that Oxylabs pool size of residential proxies is significantly larger than NetNut’s, as Oxylabs has over 30 million and NetNut has only half a million.
The same can be said about country pool size – NetNut has only 50 locations at their disposal whereas Oxylabs has over 195+ countries, or simply – all of the countries in the world.
Both NetNut and Oxylabs have credentials as an authorization method, however, NetNut doesn’t have whitelisted IPs and Oxylabs does.
When it comes to filters, Oxylabs can offer location and ASN/ provider/ carrier filters, however, they do not offer proxy type filters, but neither does NetNut. They also do not provide ASN/ provider/ carrier filters.
When it comes to the dashboard, both have a similar situation, except Oxylabs doesn’t have plan renewals, and NetNut doesn’t have Credentials/Whitelist IP changes.
NetNut vs. Oxylabs: Performance Comparison
Comparing NetNut and Oxylabs to Other Proxy Providers
|NetNut||Oxylabs||Other Proxy Providers|
As the graph before showed us, Oxylabs did better than NetNut in most cases except for connection errors, however, it still beats the industry’s average by a mile. NetNut did pretty well for themselves as well, however they did poorly with timeouts, going over the industry’s average.
Requests to the Most Popular Targets
|Target||Oxylabs||NetNut||Other Proxy Providers|
Oxylabs has some really good numbers compared to other proxy providers, especially with Amazon and Google. Oxylabs Amazon success rate is 88.90% which is better than the industry average by more than 20%, and with an even greater number of successful requests is Google with 70.24% that’s almost a whole 30% more than the industry’s average!
NetNut almost reaches Oxylabs in most cases, and even goes over with Wayfair, but really goes way down with Google. Not only it doesn’t reach the overall average, but it also struggles with a small number of 19,02%.
Performance by Concurrent Connections
During the concurrent connection test, we gradually increased the number of concurrent connections and put the proxies on a huge load. You can find the full Oxylabs and NetNut concurrent connection tables at their full reviews, but here you can clearly see that Oxylabs does a much better job than NetNut.
Oxylabs residential proxies performed really well with an average success rate of 84%. Whereas NetNut started to drop once we set the concurrent connections on 200, and from there, it went downhill.
|Oxylabs||NetNut||Other Proxy Providers|
|Avg. response time||4.58 s||10.04 s||7.78 s|
Oxylabs is a clear winner here. Not only Oxylabs has a much faster response time compared to NetNut (winning over by 5.46s) but it also is faster then other proxy providers average by 3.2s. It is safe to say that Oxylabs has a much faster response time than NetNut.
NetNut also has quite clear and easily understandable plans, being able to choose a custom plan to a Master Plus (which the price seems to be a winky face, but we guess that this price changes based on the agreements made by both sides).
Oxylabs seems to be a tad more pricey, but they do offer much more than NetNut.
Why Oxylabs is Better Than NetNut?
Oxylabs had an overall better performance then NetNut – with speeds, with concurrent connections with target scraping. It had better dashboards as well a much larger proxy pool and country list. NetNut is great for a small load, where it performs perfectly. But if your requests are larger – Oxylabs is the way to go. You can find Oxylabs’ full review here.