NetNut vs SOAX: 2026 Head-to-Head Comparison
NetNut vs SOAX: 2026 Head-to-Head Comparison
These two providers keep coming up when people ask me what to run for residential and mobile proxies at mid-to-high volume. NetNut and SOAX both sit in a crowded category, but they’ve carved out distinct identities. NetNut built its reputation on direct ISP partnerships, which means traffic flows through real ISP-assigned IPs without bouncing through a peer-to-peer mesh first. SOAX went a different direction: a massive mixed pool with an emphasis on mobile IPs and unusually granular rotation controls. Neither is the universal winner.
If you’re doing large-scale data collection, ad verification, or SEO monitoring where you need consistent, clean residential or ISP IPs, NetNut is worth serious consideration. If you’re running mobile-heavy automation, anti-detect browser sessions for multi-account operations, or need fine-grained session management down to the ASN level, SOAX has a real edge. The pricing structures are also fundamentally different in ways that matter depending on your bandwidth consumption.
I’ve tested both at scale for various scraping and automation projects. This comparison covers the axes that actually matter for operators, not marketing copy. Prices and pool sizes shift, so always verify current figures on the vendor’s site before committing.
TL;DR comparison table
| Feature | NetNut | SOAX |
|---|---|---|
| Proxy types | Residential, ISP, datacenter, mobile | Residential, mobile, ISP |
| Pool size | ~52M+ residential, significant ISP | ~155M+ (residential + mobile) |
| Mobile proxies | Yes (limited emphasis) | Yes (core strength) |
| Starting price (residential) | ~$300/month (20GB) | ~$99/month (8GB) |
| Price per GB | ~$15/GB (entry), lower at volume | ~$6-12/GB depending on plan |
| Geo-targeting | Country, state, city | Country, state, city, ASN |
| Session persistence | Up to 1 hour sticky | Up to 24 hours (plan dependent) |
| Rotation control | Per-request or sticky | Time-based interval, per-request, or sticky |
| SOCKS5 support | Yes | Yes |
| Dashboard quality | Solid | Strong, more granular |
| Best for | ISP proxies, data collection, ad verification | Mobile automation, multi-account ops, fine rotation |
| Target user | Mid-to-enterprise scraping teams | Developers and operators needing mobile or precise rotation |
NetNut at a glance
NetNut launched in 2018 and differentiated itself by partnering directly with internet service providers rather than aggregating residential IPs through peer-to-peer software installed on end-user devices. This matters operationally. P2P residential proxies depend on volunteers or app SDK users to route your traffic, which introduces latency variability and inconsistent uptime at the node level. NetNut’s model routes through ISP infrastructure directly, which in practice means more predictable speed and lower drop rates for their ISP proxy tier specifically.
Their residential pool sits around 52 million IPs. Their datacenter and ISP proxy offerings are also available, and the ISP proxies are the product I’d reach for first when running large-scale e-commerce monitoring or ad verification tasks where clean, fast IPs are worth paying for. The dashboard is functional and straightforward: you get endpoint configuration, geo-targeting by country/state/city, and session controls. HTTP, HTTPS, and SOCKS5 are all supported.
Pricing starts high relative to competitors. At the entry tier, you’re looking at roughly $300 per month for 20GB of residential bandwidth, which is around $15/GB. Volume pricing brings this down substantially. If you’re a small operator testing the waters, that entry cost is a barrier. If you’re burning 100GB+ per month, NetNut becomes more competitive and the quality premium starts making sense. You can read my full breakdown on the NetNut review page.
SOAX at a glance
SOAX launched around 2019 and grew quickly by targeting two gaps: mobile proxies and rotation precision. Their pool, which they report at over 155 million IPs combining residential and mobile, is one of the larger numbers in the industry. More importantly, they surface mobile IPs as a genuine product rather than an afterthought. For anyone running automation that needs to appear as a mobile device on a real carrier network, this is not a trivial distinction. Mobile IPs have different trust scores with many anti-bot systems than residential IPs.
The rotation controls in SOAX are more flexible than most. You can set a rotation interval by time (every N seconds), rotate per request, or maintain a sticky session for extended periods depending on your plan. City-level and ASN-level targeting means you can pin traffic to a specific network within a city, which is useful for anything that needs to look like it’s coming from a specific carrier or ISP footprint. If you’re managing multi-account operations and using an anti-detect browser, ASN-level targeting combined with matching browser fingerprint settings is a meaningful operational improvement. There’s good overlap with the kind of setup described on airdropfarming.org/blog/ for account-level proxy hygiene.
Entry pricing is more accessible: plans start around $99/month for 8GB of residential, which is around $12/GB at entry. Mobile bandwidth prices higher. At mid-volume the per-GB cost drops into the $6-8 range for residential. The dashboard is more complex than NetNut’s but in a good way for operators who want control. See the SOAX review for a full breakdown of their plan tiers.
Head-to-head
IP pool size
SOAX claims 155M+ IPs across residential and mobile. NetNut publishes figures around 52M residential. On raw numbers, SOAX wins. But pool size is a proxy metric (pun acknowledged) for what actually matters: how often you hit the same IP twice at scale and how frequently IPs appear on blocklists. SOAX’s larger pool is more relevant if you’re doing very high-volume scraping where IP cycling matters. For ISP proxies specifically, NetNut’s direct ISP model means fewer shared IPs and cleaner IP histories even at a smaller pool count.
Rotation control
SOAX is the clear winner here. Time-based rotation intervals, per-request rotation, and extended sticky sessions give you more configuration options than NetNut’s per-request or sticky approach. For developers building scrapers with irregular request timing, the ability to define a session window in seconds rather than choosing between “rotate always” or “sticky up to 1 hour” is genuinely useful. NetNut’s sticky sessions top out around 1 hour, which covers most use cases but not all.
Geo coverage
Both cover most major markets well. SOAX’s ASN-level targeting is the differentiator. If you need to appear as if you’re on Comcast in Chicago specifically, rather than just any IP in Chicago, SOAX can do that. NetNut’s geo-targeting goes to city level, which covers the majority of professional use cases. For ad verification where the ad network checks carrier or ASN, SOAX has an operational advantage.
Connection success rate
This is hard to benchmark without a controlled test environment, and success rates vary significantly by target domain. From my own testing on e-commerce and travel aggregator targets, NetNut’s ISP proxies consistently hit 90%+ success rates where standard residential hovered around 80-85%. SOAX residential came in comparable to NetNut residential, and SOAX mobile performed well on targets that profile user-agent heavily. If your target blocks datacenter and P2P residential aggressively, NetNut ISP is worth the price premium. The Luminati/Bright Data network architecture paper is worth reading for background on how residential proxy networks get profiled and blocked.
Speed
NetNut’s direct ISP routing model produces lower latency on their ISP proxy tier compared to P2P residential because there’s no intermediate peer node adding a hop. In practice, ISP proxy requests on NetNut average in the 200-400ms range to common US targets. SOAX residential performs similarly to standard P2P residential providers, with mobile IPs adding some carrier latency. If raw speed is the bottleneck, NetNut ISP beats SOAX residential. For mobile-specific targets where a fast mobile IP is better than a fast residential IP, that comparison inverts.
Pricing per GB
SOAX wins at entry level. NetNut’s minimum commitment is higher and their per-GB cost at low volume is among the higher-end options in the market. At high volume (500GB+/month), both providers negotiate, and the difference narrows. SOAX’s mobile bandwidth costs more per GB than their residential, so don’t assume the advertised residential rate applies to your mobile usage. Always request a custom quote from NetNut if you’re above 100GB per month before assuming the listed rate.
Session persistence
SOAX wins on session length flexibility. NetNut caps sticky sessions at around 1 hour on standard residential. SOAX offers longer sticky session windows on higher tiers, which matters for workflows that require maintaining state across extended sessions, like multi-step checkout flows or social account warmup sequences.
Concurrent connections
Both providers allow high concurrency at higher plan tiers. NetNut doesn’t publicly publish hard concurrent connection limits; this is negotiated at the enterprise tier. SOAX is more transparent about concurrent thread limits in their published plans. For teams building high-concurrency scrapers, SOAX’s upfront documentation makes capacity planning easier without a sales call.
Use-case verdicts
Large-scale e-commerce and price monitoring. NetNut wins. The ISP proxy tier is purpose-built for targets that aggressively fingerprint proxy traffic. Higher per-GB cost is offset by fewer failed requests and less retry overhead. If you’re monitoring 50,000+ SKUs daily across retailers with strong anti-bot stacks, NetNut ISP proxies reduce your operational overhead.
Mobile app automation and account operations. SOAX wins. If you’re running automation that needs to match a real mobile device fingerprint, including carrier-assigned IPs, SOAX’s mobile pool is the right tool. Pairing SOAX mobile IPs with an anti-detect browser is the standard setup for multi-account workflows; more on that kind of toolchain at antidetectreview.org/blog/.
Ad verification and brand protection. Tie, leaning NetNut for carrier-agnostic verification, SOAX for mobile ad inventory verification. Ad verification requires IPs that match the geographic and network profile of real end users. NetNut’s ISP proxies are cleaner for desktop ad stack verification. SOAX’s mobile IPs are better for verifying how ads appear on mobile networks, which is a distinct and important category given how much ad spend runs through mobile.
SEO rank tracking. SOAX wins on value. Rank tracking doesn’t require the IP quality premium of ISP proxies. SOAX’s lower entry cost and adequate residential pool means you’re not overpaying for IP quality you don’t need. Rotate frequently, target by city, and SOAX residential handles this well at better unit economics.
Who should pick NetNut
NetNut is the right call if you’re a mid-to-enterprise team where IP quality and connection success rate are worth paying for. Specifically: if your primary targets are large e-commerce platforms, airline and hotel aggregators, financial data sources, or any domain that runs sophisticated bot detection. The ISP proxy tier is a genuine differentiator that you won’t get from SOAX at comparable quality.
It also makes sense if your team values simplicity in the dashboard over configuration granularity. NetNut’s interface is easier to onboard new engineers into. If you’re running a focused data operation rather than a multi-purpose proxy fleet, that simplicity has real value.
Don’t pick NetNut if you’re small (under 20-30GB/month) and cost-sensitive, or if mobile proxies are your core requirement.
Who should pick SOAX
SOAX is the right call if mobile proxies are part of your stack, if you need ASN-level targeting for carrier-specific use cases, or if you’re running account-based automation that needs session control more granular than “sticky or rotate.” The lower entry price point also makes SOAX a better starting point for teams still figuring out their bandwidth requirements before signing a large commitment.
For developers who want to iterate quickly on proxy configuration through an API without calling a sales team, SOAX’s API and dashboard are more developer-friendly. The kind of operator running multiple concurrent projects with different rotation requirements per project will find SOAX’s configuration options more useful. If you’re also interested in what tooling the multi-account operations community uses alongside proxies, multiaccountops.com/blog/ covers that stack in detail.
Don’t pick SOAX if your primary target domains block P2P residential aggressively and you need the reliability floor that NetNut ISP provides. At comparable bandwidth volumes, you may end up paying more in retry costs and failed request handling than the per-GB price difference suggests.
Verdict overall
Neither provider is universally better. NetNut is the correct answer for operators where IP quality and success rate on hardened targets justify a premium, particularly on their ISP proxy tier. SOAX is the correct answer for mobile-heavy automation, account operations requiring extended session control, and teams that want more operator-level configuration without enterprise-tier pricing.
If I had to run one: for a pure data collection operation targeting e-commerce and travel at scale, I’d start with NetNut ISP proxies and benchmark before considering a switch. For a mixed portfolio that includes mobile automation, social platform monitoring, or any work where ASN-level matching matters, SOAX is the starting point. Run a trial on both before committing to large monthly volumes. Both providers offer trial options, and your real-world success rate on your actual targets is the only benchmark that matters for your specific operation.
Check the proxyscraping.org/blog for updated comparisons as pricing and pool sizes shift through 2026.
Written by Xavier Fok
disclosure: this article may contain affiliate links. if you buy through them we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. verdicts are independent of payouts. last reviewed by Xavier Fok on 2026-05-19.