residential vs datacenter proxies
Use datacenter proxies until a target starts scoring the network type, then escalate only that target to residential.
Loading page content.
Loading page content.
Proxy types explained
IPv6 proxies are the cheapest addresses anyone sells, often by an order of magnitude, and the reason is simple arithmetic: IPv4 exhausted its address space years ago and IPv6 has not begun to. A single customer can hold a /64 containing more addresses than the entire IPv4 internet.
That abundance is the whole value proposition and also the whole problem. Scarcity is what makes an IPv4 address carry weight; an address type that costs nothing to acquire in bulk is treated accordingly by anything defending itself.
Last reviewed 15 Jan 2026.
At a glance
IPv6 where the target supports it and does not weigh address scarcity. IPv4 everywhere else, which is still most of the commercial web.
Two questions decide it, in order. Does the target publish AAAA records at all — because if it does not, IPv6 egress simply cannot reach it. And if it does, does it treat a /64 as one entity rather than as billions of addresses? Most defended sites do exactly that, which collapses the apparent advantage: rotating through a subnet the target scores as a single unit is no different from making every request from one address. Where both answers are favourable, IPv6 is dramatically cheaper for the same work.
The two options
Definitions first. Most of the confusion in this comparison comes from names that describe how an address is sold rather than what it is.
Scarce 32-bit addresses that every target accepts
Addresses from the exhausted 32-bit space. Universally routable, universally accepted, and priced by the scarcity of the remaining supply.
Abundant 128-bit addresses, sold by the subnet
Addresses from the 128-bit space, typically sold as whole /64 subnets. Enormous address counts at very low cost, reachable only by hosts that publish AAAA records.
Side by side
| Dimension | IPv4 | IPv6 |
|---|---|---|
| Address space | 32-bit, exhausted | 128-bit, effectively unlimited |
| Relative cost per address | High, and rising with scarcity | Very low |
| Target reachability | Universal | Only hosts publishing AAAA records |
| How defences treat it | Scored per address | Frequently scored per /64 subnet |
| Typical unit sold | Individual addresses | Whole /64 subnets |
| Network types available | Residential, ISP, mobile, datacenter | Overwhelmingly datacenter |
| Rate-limit pressure | Real: per-address limits bind | Low per address, but subnet limits may apply |
| Best fit | Anything defended, and anything without AAAA records | High-volume access to IPv6-capable, lightly defended targets |
The value of an IPv4 address as a reputation signal comes from the fact that it costs something to obtain. An attacker who wants ten thousand IPv4 addresses has to buy or lease them from a constrained market, and that cost is precisely what makes per-address reputation meaningful.
IPv6 removes the cost. A single /64 contains eighteen quintillion addresses, which is more than the entire IPv4 internet by an enormous margin, and it is allocated to one customer as a routine matter. Any defence that scored IPv6 per address would be scoring something free, which is the same as scoring nothing.
So defences aggregate. Treating a /64 — sometimes a /48 — as a single entity restores the scarcity property, because an operator getting a new /48 is a real event. The practical consequence for a proxy buyer is that rotating through billions of addresses inside one subnet gains you nothing against a target that scores the subnet. The pool is enormous and the entity count is one.
An IPv6-only client can reach a host only if that host publishes AAAA records. Adoption is genuinely broad among large platforms and content networks, and genuinely patchy across the long tail of commercial sites, regional retailers and older infrastructure.
That makes reachability the first thing to test, and it is a cheap test: resolve AAAA records for your target list and count. If a meaningful share have none, IPv6 egress cannot serve them at any price and the decision is already made for that portion of the workload.
Watch for the partial case too. A site may publish AAAA records for its main hostname but not for the API subdomain, the image origin or the checkout host. A collector that works over IPv6 on the landing page and fails on the endpoint that matters is a confusing failure to debug if you have not checked per hostname.
Very high-volume collection from IPv6-capable targets that do not run heavy defences is the clear case. If you are pulling millions of pages from an API that publishes AAAA records and rate-limits per address rather than per subnet, IPv6 does the same job for a fraction of the cost, and the saving is large enough to change what is economically viable.
Internal and partner infrastructure is another. If you control both ends, or your counterparty does, the reputation question disappears entirely — nobody is scoring you — and the only thing that matters is that both ends speak IPv6.
Testing and development is a third, less obvious one. Verifying that your own services behave correctly over IPv6, checking geographic routing, or generating load from many distinct addresses are all jobs where cheap addresses are exactly what is wanted and no adversary is involved.
The pragmatic architecture is to try IPv6 first where AAAA records exist, and fall back to IPv4 on failure or on a poor success rate. That captures the cost saving on the subset of traffic where it is available without giving up reach.
Instrument it per hostname, because the answer varies per hostname and changes over time. A target that scored IPv6 harshly last quarter may not now; one that accepted it may have tightened. An aggregate success rate across a dual-stack fleet hides both movements.
Be careful about happy-eyeballs behaviour in your client. Many HTTP clients try both families and prefer whichever answers first, which means you may believe you are testing IPv6 while the request quietly went out over IPv4. Pin the family explicitly when measuring, and confirm the exit address with a lookup rather than trusting the configuration.
Decision rules
If your workload matches one of these, the choice is already made. If it matches none, start on the cheaper option and escalate what fails.
| Scenario | Choose | Why |
|---|---|---|
| High-volume access to an IPv6-capable API | IPv6 | Same job, dramatically lower cost, and no scarcity pressure on the pool. |
| Any target behind a commercial anti-bot vendor | IPv4, residential or ISP | Subnet aggregation erases the pool advantage, and IPv6 traffic frequently starts from a worse baseline. |
| A target list with patchy AAAA coverage | Dual-stack with IPv4 fallback | Capture the saving where IPv6 is reachable without losing the hostnames that are not. |
| Load testing your own infrastructure | IPv6 | Nobody is scoring you, and cheap distinct addresses are exactly the requirement. |
Questions
Recommendation
Check AAAA coverage on your target list first, then check whether the targets that have it are aggregating your subnet. Where both answers are favourable, IPv6 is the cheapest bandwidth in this market by a wide margin.
Use datacenter proxies until a target starts scoring the network type, then escalate only that target to residential.
Rotate when requests are independent. Hold a static address when a session, a login or an account has to persist.
ISP proxies for a stable identity that reads as consumer space. Rotating residential for breadth across many addresses.
Every claim on this page is checkable in an afternoon. Claim 50MB of free residential bandwidth, run your own hostname list through it, and compare block rate and cost per successful request against whatever you use now.
No card required for the trial. Cancel or downgrade at any time.