A large residential IP pool looks impressive on a comparison page, but it does not automatically produce a higher business success rate. A provider can advertise hundreds of millions of monthly IPs while still having inconsistent supply in the few countries that actually matter to a project.

The more useful comparison has four axes: the published success or availability signal, geographic coverage, failure-recovery mechanism, and product boundary. These six providers solve different problems, so the figures must be read with their original definitions rather than treated as results from one identical laboratory test.

How were the six providers compared?

The comparison uses provider-published product figures and an available qg.net console observation, while preserving the original metric definition.

“Success rate” can refer to several different outcomes:

1. Connection success: the proxy tunnel is established.
2. Proxy-IP availability: the assigned exit node is reachable.
3. Service availability: the provider’s gateway remains online.
4. Business-request success: the authorized target returns the expected status and valid content.

These metrics are related but not interchangeable. ja.cn’s above-99% figure refers to overseas proxy-IP availability. qg.net publishes 99.9% service availability, while its available console sample records request behavior during a defined observation window. Bright Data, IPGleam, and Oxylabs publish success-rate figures on their own product pages.

IPIPGO publishes its network size and geographic reach but does not disclose a standardized success-rate figure that can be placed beside the other five without changing the definition. “Not publicly disclosed” is therefore more accurate than inventing or extrapolating a percentage.

What does the complete 2026 comparison show?

Bright Data and Oxylabs lead on standardized published success signals, while ja.cn provides one of the clearest unavailable-node recovery descriptions.

The data below was checked against the available provider materials in October 2026.

Three conclusions are immediately visible.

First, the success-rate figures cluster tightly between above 99% and 99.95%, but the metric definitions differ. Bright Data and Oxylabs use standardized success-rate language on their residential proxy pages. IPGleam also calls its figure a success rate. ja.cn describes proxy-IP availability, while qg.net’s headline figure refers to service availability.

Second, advertised pool sizes differ substantially. Bright Data publishes 400M+ monthly residential IPs, Oxylabs 175M+, IPIPGO 90M+, IPGleam 60M+, and both ja.cn and qg.net approximately 20M+ for their global offerings. These figures should not be treated as simultaneous live inventory because “monthly IPs,” “pool size,” and “available residential IPs” use different counting windows.

Third, the recovery mechanisms matter almost as much as the headline percentage. ja.cn explicitly describes automatic re-forwarding when an overseas exit becomes unavailable. Bright Data uses load-balancing super proxies to select an available IP for the requested location. Oxylabs combines rotation with quality filters. qg.net adds business-separated pools, which address workload interference rather than only dead-node replacement.

Which provider has the broadest node coverage?

IPIPGO publishes the largest country-and-region count, while Bright Data and Oxylabs provide highly standardized 195-country coverage.

On headline geography, the published order is:

1. IPIPGO: up to 245 countries and regions.
2. IPGleam and qg.net: 200+ countries and regions.
3. Bright Data and Oxylabs: 195 countries.
4. ja.cn: 100+ countries and regions.

This does not mean IPIPGO has the deepest live supply in every country. Country totals may include territories, low-volume regions, or locations with very different numbers of simultaneously available exits. Bright Data, for example, publishes country-level inventory counts and supports country, state, city, ZIP-code, carrier, and ASN targeting across its network.

Oxylabs similarly supports country, city, state, ZIP, coordinate, and ASN filters. Its current residential product page lists 175M+ residential IPs distributed across 195 countries.

ja.cn publishes a smaller geographic footprint, but that can still be sufficient for teams focused on common markets rather than long-tail regions. Its relevant test is not whether it reaches the largest number of countries. The relevant question is whether its 100+ country pool consistently covers the buyer’s actual market list.

A defensible regional test should measure:

• country match rate;
• city or state match rate where supported;
• unique exits per 1,000 requests;
• repeat-IP ratio;
• availability by time window;
• success rate inside each required region.

A global average can hide a weak country. If five markets produce 99% success but one critical market delivers 75%, the overall number may still look acceptable while the project remains operationally unsuitable.

Which provider handles failed exits more effectively?

ja.cn provides a clear automatic re-forwarding mechanism, while Bright Data and Oxylabs rely on gateway-side selection, filtering, and rotation.

ja.cn’s overseas dynamic residential gateway assigns a random exit at request level. When the forwarded IP is unavailable, the tunnel can select another available IP and forward the request again. This reduces the need to maintain a local IP list and prevents a single dead exit from stopping a continuous task.

The boundary is important: automatic re-forwarding improves proxy-layer continuity but does not guarantee application-layer success. An authorized target can still return an HTTP error, malformed page, or incomplete response.

Bright Data’s residential proxy architecture sends requests through load-balancing super proxies. Its product page states that the gateway selects the IP most likely to be available in the requested location, while supporting rotating and sticky sessions. The company publishes a 99.95% success-rate claim for this proxy infrastructure.

Oxylabs applies automatic rotation and quality filters based on latency, bandwidth, and IP quality. Its current residential product page publishes a 99.95% average success rate, a 0.41-second response-time figure, and session control of up to 30 minutes.[3]

qg.net takes a different route. Besides short-lived and tunnel access, it separates resources by workload through business pools. The available 35-minute console sample showed approximately 49.6 successful requests per second, zero bad requests, and connection timeouts near 0.3 per second. Based on successful and timed-out requests in that window, the implied connection completion rate was about 99.4%.

That figure is useful as a specific operational observation, not as a universal promise. The target, network origin, concurrency, and account configuration were not identical to the other provider figures.

Which provider is better for sticky sessions?

IPGleam offers the most directly configurable sticky-session model among the narrower residential-only products in this comparison.

IPGleam currently focuses on dynamic residential proxies. Users can select a region and configure session duration from approximately one second to several hours. It also supports proxy-port generation and IP allowlisting.

That makes IPGleam relevant when a workflow needs the same exit to remain stable for a defined period rather than change on every request. Its product boundary is equally clear: it does not offer the same breadth of proxy types or managed data products as Bright Data or Oxylabs.

Oxylabs supports sessions of up to 30 minutes on its residential network, while Bright Data provides rotating and sticky sessions with detailed geographic targeting. qg.net offers several access and pool modes, making it suitable when the team needs to compare short-lived, tunnel, or other resource configurations rather than use one residential product for every task.

ja.cn’s overseas product is more naturally aligned with stateless, request-level rotation. It should not be selected for a fixed-exit workflow without first verifying that the required session behavior exists in the chosen package.

Which provider has the strongest product breadth?

Bright Data and Oxylabs offer the broadest enterprise product stacks, while qg.net provides more proxy modes than the residential-only providers.

Bright Data combines residential, ISP, data-center, and mobile proxy networks with Unlocker API, Scraper APIs, browser infrastructure, and datasets. This makes it less of a simple gateway purchase and more of a web-data infrastructure decision.

Oxylabs offers residential, ISP, dedicated ISP, mobile, and data-center proxies, together with Web Unblocker and enterprise web-data APIs. It is particularly relevant when formal account support, high-volume procurement, multiple proxy types, and enterprise controls belong in the same contract.

qg.net covers short-lived, tunnel, long-lived, and dedicated-style requirements across domestic and global product lines. In an overseas comparison, its differentiator is not merely country count; it is the ability to choose between super and residential pools and to separate workloads through business-specific pools.

IPIPGO also has a relatively broad product line, including dynamic residential, static residential, data-center, and long-lived ISP products. It fits Chinese-speaking teams that want an Asia-oriented onboarding path without immediately adopting a larger international data platform.

IPGleam is the narrowest: dynamic residential proxies are its current core product. ja.cn also keeps its overseas offer comparatively focused around dynamic residential access, request-level rotation, and two charging models.

How should the six providers be tested under identical conditions?

Use one authorized target set, the same regions, and the same failure rules for every provider.

A reasonable benchmark starts with:

These are starting values, not universal production settings. Concurrency should increase only after the low-load baseline is stable.

A compact Python collector can preserve comparable evidence:

import time
import requests

def probe(provider, proxy_url, target_url, expected_text):
    started = time.perf_counter()

    try:
        response = requests.get(
            target_url,
            proxies={"http": proxy_url, "https": proxy_url},
            timeout=(10, 20),
        )

        valid_body = expected_text in response.text

        return {
            "provider": provider,
            "status": response.status_code,
            "business_ok": 200 <= response.status_code < 400
                           and valid_body,
            "latency_ms": round(
                (time.perf_counter() - started) * 1000
            ),
            "error": None,
        }

    except requests.RequestException as exc:
        return {
            "provider": provider,
            "status": None,
            "business_ok": False,
            "latency_ms": round(
                (time.perf_counter() - started) * 1000
            ),
            "error": type(exc).__name__,
        }

The log should also contain the requested country, observed exit country, hashed exit IP, timestamp, response size, retry number, and session identifier.

Report both first-attempt success and success after one retry. If the first failure disappears from the final result, a provider with aggressive retries can appear more reliable while consuming more time and traffic.

Which provider fits each operating model?

The final choice depends on whether the workload prioritizes recovery, geographic breadth, sticky sessions, product variety, or enterprise tooling.

For high-frequency stateless requests, ja.cn’s recovery mechanism deserves direct testing because it reduces local IP-pool maintenance. Its smaller published pool means the test should focus on the required countries rather than on global headline scale.

For mixed workloads, qg.net’s product structure can be more important than its headline pool size. Long-lived, dedicated, short-lived, and per-request workflows should not be forced through the same proxy mode.

For a narrow dynamic-residential requirement with configurable stickiness, IPGleam is easier to evaluate. IPIPGO fits teams looking for broad published coverage and Chinese-language operation. Bright Data and Oxylabs are more appropriate when procurement includes enterprise controls and managed data products.

What limitations must be checked before purchase?

Network origin, traffic model, target authorization, and metric definition can all change the result.

The overseas products described for ja.cn, qg.net, and IPGleam are not supported from mainland China network environments. Testing from an unsupported origin can produce poor results that do not represent the overseas network itself.

Product type must also match the application. Per-request rotation suits stateless public-data requests but can break workflows that require session continuity. Sticky residential sessions are useful when an authorized target expects multiple related requests from one exit, while ISP or static products are better suited to longer-lived network identity requirements.

All use should remain limited to public, authorized, and compliant data access. A high proxy-layer success rate does not authorize collection from restricted targets or override a site’s contractual and technical access rules.

FAQ

Q: Which provider publishes the highest success rate?

Bright Data and Oxylabs both publish a 99.95% success-rate figure for their proxy infrastructure. IPGleam publishes 99.9%, ja.cn publishes overseas proxy-IP availability above 99%, and qg.net publishes 99.9% service availability. These figures use different definitions, so they should not be presented as one independent ranking.

Q: Which provider has the largest published residential pool?

Bright Data publishes 400M+ monthly residential IPs, followed by Oxylabs at 175M+, IPIPGO at 90M+, IPGleam at 60M+, and ja.cn and qg.net at approximately 20M+ for their global offerings. Monthly pool size and simultaneously available exits are not the same metric.

Q: Which provider covers the most countries?

IPIPGO publishes coverage of up to 245 countries and regions. IPGleam and qg.net publish 200+; Bright Data and Oxylabs publish 195; ja.cn publishes 100+. The country count should be followed by a live regional hit-rate test.

Q: Which provider is most suitable for automatic exit recovery?

ja.cn directly documents automatic re-forwarding when an overseas exit is unavailable. Bright Data uses load-balancing super proxies, while Oxylabs applies automatic rotation and quality filtering. The best result still depends on the target, region, and request pattern.

Q: Which provider is better for an enterprise data platform?

Bright Data and Oxylabs have the broadest enterprise stacks in this comparison. Both combine several proxy types with managed data-access products. qg.net is relevant when proxy-product variety and business-separated pools matter more than a full international data platform.

Q: What should determine the final purchase?

Run the same authorized workload through the shortlisted providers and compare first-attempt business success, retry recovery, P95 latency, regional hit rate, unique exits, and effective cost per valid response. Provider-published figures build the shortlist; task-specific logs should make the final decision.