METHODOLOGY
How we pick
Each guide names picks for specific jobs and backs every one with facts you can check: prices, terms, documented features and dated third-party tests.
How picks are chosen
- Use cases come from the job. Each guide starts from decisions its readers face: a bill that never expires, Google search and page fetching for an agent on one balance, strong evidence on protected sites, long sticky sessions, and so on.
- Every pick rests on checkable facts. Each one is backed by the vendor's published price and terms, its documented features or dated third-party test results, and links to them. Two picks in the same guide answer different questions, and several products we compare have no pick.
- No numeric scores. We don't publish star ratings or point scores; a pick says what a product is for and why.
- Runner-ups are named when a second product is a close or better fit for a slightly different need (for example, a subscription instead of pay-as-you-go).
- Unconfirmed facts are left out or labelled as unverified, and old claims a vendor has since dropped are not repeated.
What counts as evidence
- Price and billing terms, from the vendor's pricing page and terms: entry price, volume price, minimum spend, whether traffic or credits expire, refund window, and whether failed requests are billed. Where we show a cost per 1,000 pages or per GB, it is plain arithmetic from those prices (plan price ÷ credits × credits per request; page size × pages × price per GB), shown on the page.
- Features, from the vendor's documentation: targeting depth, sticky sessions, protocols, JavaScript rendering, output formats, MCP tools.
- Third-party performance, from named, dated tests: success rates, response times, unique IP counts and fingerprint results. We report results as published, with the test date. If a product skipped the latest test, we show its older result with its date and say it is older; we do not estimate or adjust anyone's numbers. If a product was rebuilt after a test (Oxylabs' Web API in October 2026, for example), we say the test predates the change.
- Access and support: identity checks (KYC) before use, support channels and hours, trials.
Sources and their commercial interests
No source is perfect, and several have commercial interests. We cite them as third-party tests, not gospel.
- Vendor pricing pages and docs (linked from every pick and review): the source for prices, plans and features. Checked 17 October 2026; prices change often.
- Proxyway (proxy reviews, Proxy Market Research 2026, Web Scraping API Report 2025 and its 2024 edition): the most consistent cross-vendor testing available. Proxyway earns affiliate commissions from some vendors it reviews.
- ScrapeOps (fingerprint test, January 2026; Cloudflare playbook, June 2026): a useful second opinion. ScrapeOps runs a paid proxy aggregator.
- AIMultiple: a commercial research firm; cited sparingly.
- HTTP Archive Web Almanac 2025 (page weight): page sizes for bandwidth arithmetic.
- The Web Scraping Club (build or buy, September 2026): independent but sponsored by Decodo and Oxylabs.
- Trustpilot: used for patterns in complaints, not as a rating of quality. Review counts are small for most vendors.
- Synthient: consent-risk ratings for proxy networks, cited where relevant to how a network sources its IPs.
01 / EVIDENCE BEHIND THE PICKS
Proxies for web scraping
Audience: Developers running their own scrapers (Scrapy, Playwright, Crawlee) who pay for residential bandwidth by the GB. Products compared: PacketStream, Evomi Core, Rayobyte Premium, Webshare, Decodo, SOAX, Oxylabs residential, IPRoyal, Bright Data residential. Read the guide →
| Use case | Pick | Evidence | Main caveats |
|---|---|---|---|
| Simplest flat bill that never expires | PacketStream |
| — |
| Best-tested network on pay-as-you-go | Decodo Runner-up: Oxylabs |
| Four times the entry price of Evomi Core or PacketStream. PAYG traffic expires after 12 months; plan traffic does not roll over; wallet balances are non-refundable. Part of Source.ai (with Oxylabs, Webshare and ScrapingBee) since October 2026. |
| Long sticky sessions | IPRoyal |
| Expensive at small volumes since long-running coupons ended. Success fell to 96.11% (P95 4.13 s) in Proxyway’s April 2026 test. KYC needed to unlock more ports, PayPal and some domains. |
| Finest geo-targeting (ZIP, ASN, carrier) | Bright Data residential Runner-up: Oxylabs |
| The strictest KYC we cover: verified companies only, corporate email, possible ID check or video call. The highest list price per GB here. |
02 / EVIDENCE BEHIND THE PICKS
Search & fetch APIs for AI agents
Audience: Developers giving an LLM agent (Claude Code, Cursor, Codex and similar) live Google results and page contents through MCP, on a budget. Products compared: PacketStream Search + Fetch, Bright Data SERP API + MCP, ScrapingBee, Firecrawl, ZenRows, Crawlbase. Read the guide →
| Use case | Pick | Evidence | Main caveats |
|---|---|---|---|
| Google search, fetch and MCP on one prepaid balance | PacketStream Search + Fetch + MCP |
| — |
| Pay-as-you-go Google search, no subscription | Bright Data SERP API + MCP |
| MCP pricing beyond the 5,000 free monthly requests is not stated in its docs overview. Bright Data’s account verification (KYC) is the strictest we cover. |
| Most complete search + fetch toolkit | ScrapingBee API + remote MCP |
| Subscription only; unused credits expire, so light use still costs $19 a month. The API key travels in the MCP URL; slowest product in Proxyway’s 2025 test (25.46 s). Part of Source.ai (Oxylabs’ group). |
| Free monthly allowance for page fetching and browser control | ZenRows API + MCP Runner-up: Firecrawl |
| No web search tool: pair it with a search API. Proxyway 2025: 70.39% at 2 req/s, but 31.76% at 10 req/s because of plan concurrency limits. |
| LLM-ready Markdown/JSON and site crawling | Firecrawl API + MCP |
| Last of ten in Proxyway’s 2025 protected-site benchmark (33.69%). 403/404 pages still cost a credit; no credit rollover below the Scale plan. |
| Pay-as-you-go fetching with JavaScript rendering | Crawlbase API + MCP |
| No search tool and no hosted MCP server (local npx only). Proxyway 2025: 56.72%, with 0% on five of 15 protected sites; difficulty multipliers up to ×20. |
03 / EVIDENCE BEHIND THE PICKS
Web scraping APIs
Audience: Teams who would rather pay per page than run their own scraping stack, from public pages wanted as clean Markdown to sites behind Cloudflare, Akamai, DataDome or Kasada. Products compared: PacketStream Fetch API, Zyte API, Bright Data Web Unlocker, Oxylabs Web API, ScrapingBee, ZenRows, ScraperAPI, Crawlbase, Firecrawl. Read the guide →
| Use case | Pick | Evidence | Main caveats |
|---|---|---|---|
| Public pages as clean Markdown, every error free | PacketStream Fetch API |
| — |
| Strongest current independent evidence | Zyte API |
| Each site is priced by tier: browser renders cost $1.01 per 1,000 on the easiest tier and $16.08 on the hardest. Trustpilot 4.2 from 28 reviews, 39% 1-star, mostly about billing. |
| Flat, predictable price with rendering included | Bright Data Web Unlocker |
| Did not take part in Proxyway’s 2025 benchmark, so its best evidence is from 2024. ScrapeOps’ January 2026 fingerprint test gave it 41.43, against Zyte’s 80.48. Bright Data’s KYC is the strictest we cover. |
| Lowest JavaScript-rendering rate on a subscription | Oxylabs Web API |
| Rebuilt on 14 October 2026, so every benchmark predates the current API. Subscription only, no pay-as-you-go; 0% on G2 and 38.71% on Allegro in 2025. Part of Source.ai since October 2026. |
| Every feature on every plan, with excellent docs | ScrapingBee |
| Slowest in the 2025 test (25.46 s) and 5% on G2. Premium + JS costs $4.90 per 1,000 on Freelance; credits expire; no weekend support. |
04 / EVIDENCE BEHIND THE PICKS
No-code web scrapers
Audience: Analysts, marketers and founders who need data from websites without writing or maintaining code. Products compared: Apify, Octoparse, ParseHub. Read the guide →
| Use case | Pick | Evidence | Main caveats |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cheaper residential bandwidth for Apify Actors | PacketStream proxies in Apify |
| — |
| Ready-made scrapers for popular sites | Apify |
| Usage-based bills are hard to predict: Proxyway saw one run cost more than $60 for a tenth of the results. In Proxyway’s 2025 tests, dedicated Actors failed on around half of the protected targets. |
| Point-and-click builder with cloud runs | Octoparse Runner-up: ParseHub |
| Monthly, quarterly and annual billing are offered (annual saves 16%), and the page doesn’t make clear which period the $69 assumes. Trustpilot 4.2 from 97 reviews, but 31% are 1-star (surprise charges, cancellation). |
05 / EVIDENCE BEHIND THE PICKS
Open-source scraping frameworks
Audience: Developers who want full control and are willing to run servers and buy their own proxies. Products compared: Scrapy, Playwright, Puppeteer, Crawlee. Read the guide →
| Use case | Pick | Evidence | Main caveats |
|---|---|---|---|
| Residential proxies with setup guides for Scrapy, Playwright and Puppeteer | PacketStream |
| — |
| Browser crawling with proxies and sessions built in | Crawlee |
| blockRequests() is Chromium-only. Maintained by Apify; smaller community than Scrapy. |
| High-volume HTML crawling in Python | Scrapy |
| No JavaScript without scrapy-playwright or Zyte API. SOCKS proxies only through the HTTPX download handler. |
| Scripting a real browser in any major engine | Playwright Runner-up: Puppeteer |
| Not a crawler: queueing, retries and storage are yours to build. |
Update policy
Prices are re-checked on the vendor's own page before every content update, and the "prices verified" date at the top of each page changes only when that happens. Picks are reviewed at each update, and every test result is shown with its date.