黑五提前开启 使用优惠码,即享 2 倍流量和 2 倍数量的 ISP 代理 BF26
开始试用
返回

Why Is My Proxy Getting Blocked? 1,600 Requests Tested

用你偏好的 AI 总结本文
试用我们的高级代理

无限量测试我们的优质代理,畅享卓越质量。

  • 移动代理和住宅代理
  • ZIP 级别定位
  • 静态 IP 和轮换 IP
  • 内置质量过滤器
立即试用

When a scraper starts returning CAPTCHAs or block pages, teams often blame the proxy provider first. Spoiler: replacing proxy isn’t always the fix. In our Walmart and Amazon tests, Walmart reacted much more strongly to the browser setup, while Amazon results varied across both browsers and proxy pools without revealing a repeatable solution.

We used NodeMaven’s open-source proxy-benchmark to compare 4 residential proxy providers across 2 browser setups. Every provider faced the same targets and request sequence during the same run, which let us see whether the result followed the browser, proxy pool, or session.

This article breaks down the results and why a blocked scraping request should not automatically be treated as a proxy problem.

Choose quality-filtered proxies for Amazon and Walmart scraping

Test NodeMaven residential and mobile proxies with clean IPs, stable sessions, and precise location targeting. Start with 750 MB of traffic for $3.50 and compare performance across browsers.

立即试用

Results at a glance

We counted a page as delivered only when it contained the expected search results. A CAPTCHA or block page did not pass, even when the server returned an ordinary HTTP response.

寻找What the test found
Changing the browser improved Walmart deliveryCloakBrowser delivered 74 of 80 first pages, while Patchright delivered 0 of 80 across the same four proxy providers
One successful page did not validate the sessionWith CloakBrowser, delivery fell from 93% on the first page to 22% on pages 2-5
Amazon had no repeatable browser fixPatchright delivered 21% and CloakBrowser 14% in this run, but earlier runs reversed their order
Changing providers did not solve every blockWalmart remained at 0% with Patchright across all four providers; every Amazon browser-provider combination stayed below 34%
Block pages still consumed trafficA Walmart CAPTCHA used 1.45 MB, compared with 2.37 MB for a results page
Source: NodeMaven browser-versus-proxy test, October 2026, run with proxy-benchmark.

Browser setup was the clearest observed difference on Walmart. Amazon varied across browsers and sampled proxy pools, but neither browser supplied a dependable fix.

Source: NodeMaven browser-versus-proxy test, October 2026, run with proxy-benchmark.

Methodology: how we compared browsers and proxy providers

We ran the experiment with NodeMaven’s open-source proxy-benchmark. The measurement tool records the browser, provider, target, session, verdict, timing, and traffic for each attempt. It also separates a website refusal from a proxy or browser error.

The test covered:

  • 1,600 Walmart and Amazon search-page requests;
  • 4 residential proxy providers: Decodo, NodeMaven, Oxylabs, and Proxy-Cheap;
  • US residential IPs, with providers interleaved inside the same run;
  • CloakBrowser and Patchright under the same selected settings;
  • 100 requests for every provider, browser, and target combination;
  • 20 sessions per test cell, with one sticky IP making five consecutive searches.

The providers alternated throughout the run. Running provider A in the morning and provider B four hours later would have mixed provider performance with whatever changed at the target during those four hours.

Why is my proxy getting blocked when scraping?

A CAPTCHA doesn’t tell you which part of the setup triggered it. Websites can react to the exit IP, browser environment, cookies, repeated navigation, request timing, or signals created by the connection itself.

Our Walmart results make the browser problem easy to see. Every proxy provider returned first-page results through CloakBrowser, while every Patchright session met a CAPTCHA immediately. On Amazon, the evidence was mixed. Results differed across provider pools, yet both browsers failed to retrieve a single usable page in most sessions.

Community reports show the same diagnostic problem. In one SeleniumBase discussion, a developer said a Walmart scraper’s CAPTCHA rate rose from roughly 10% to 90% while the code and use of residential proxies stayed similar. That example shows why a proxy change can become an expensive guess, that might not change the results.

Walmart results: the browser changed the outcome

First-page delivery changed from 0% to 85-100%

提供商CloakBrowserPatchright
Decodo18 of 20 (90%)0 of 20 (0%)
NodeMaven19 of 20 (95%)0 of 20 (0%)
Oxylabs20 of 20 (100%)0 of 20 (0%)
Proxy-Cheap17 of 20 (85%)0 of 20 (0%)
All providers74 of 80 (93%)0 of 80 (0%)
Source: NodeMaven browser-versus-proxy test, October 2026, run with proxy-benchmark.

Changing providers would not have fixed Patchright in this test. Walmart showed a CAPTCHA from the first request in all 80 Patchright sessions. CloakBrowser retrieved most first pages through every provider, including 19 of 20 through NodeMaven.

The first page did not predict the full session

CloakBrowser looked excellent on the first search, however the next four pages gave a different result.

Position in the sessionDelivered pages
First page74 of 80 (93%)
Pages 2-570 of 320 (22%)
Source: NodeMaven browser-versus-proxy test, October 2026, run with proxy-benchmark.

Delivery dropped for all four providers after the first request, so testing only one Walmart page would have overstated their performance.

CAPTCHA pages still consume paid traffic

A valid Walmart results page used 2.37 MB in this test. The CAPTCHA page used 1.45 MB, about 61% as much.

Patchright downloaded CAPTCHA pages for all 400 Walmart requests. Multiplying the measured page size by those requests gives approximately 580 MB of traffic without one usable result.

Price per GB misses the cost of blocked responses, so a better measure is proxy cost per usable page. A recent Reddit discussion about Walmart scraping questioned success rates that never define success; our test shows the problem, as Patchright loaded only CAPTCHAs while CloakBrowser fell from 93% delivery on the first page to 22% on later pages.

Amazon results: changing browsers did not provide a stable fix

Amazon produced a much smaller browser gap than Walmart. CloakBrowser delivered 56 of 400 pages, or 14%. Patchright delivered 84, or 21%.

浏览器Delivered pages
CloakBrowser56 of 400 (14%)
Patchright84 of 400 (21%)
Source: NodeMaven browser-versus-proxy test, October 2026, run with proxy-benchmark.

Patchright did better in this run, but earlier runs had placed CloakBrowser ahead. That reversal rules out a lasting conclusion that switching to Patchright fixes Amazon delivery.

Amazon results by provider and browser

提供商CloakBrowserPatchrightBoth browser cells
Decodo8 of 100 (8%)12 of 100 (12%)20 of 200 (10%)
NodeMaven15 of 100 (15%)20 of 100 (20%)35 of 200 (17.5%)
Oxylabs21 of 100 (21%)33 of 100 (33%)54 of 200 (27%)
Proxy-Cheap12 of 100 (12%)19 of 100 (19%)31 of 200 (15.5%)
All providers56 of 400 (14%)84 of 400 (21%)140 of 800 (17.5%)
Source: NodeMaven browser-versus-proxy test, October 2026, run with proxy-benchmark.

注意: Don’t use this table as a permanent Amazon provider ranking. Test more exit IPs with the same browser and repeat the comparison before switching providers.

Most Amazon sessions returned no usable page

Across the two browser arms, 108 of 160 sessions returned no usable page. Amazon usually returned its “too many requests” response. Only 21 of 160 first pages arrived, compared with 119 of 640 pages at positions 2-5.

Changing the browser still left most sessions without a usable page, so the test did not isolate a single cause.

Amazon results also changed by test window. In our larger study of what affects web scraping success, all compared premium pools improved or declined at the same time, so testing providers at different times can produce a misleading ranking.

For a separate test of eight browser automation setups on Amazon, see our browser automation benchmark.

What is the best proxy for Walmart or Amazon scraping?

No provider won across both targets. The results instead show what a buyer should test before choosing one.

TargetWhat to test first
Walmart(沃尔玛)Browser compatibility, then delivery across several pages in one session
AmazonSeveral exit IPs across repeated, overlapping test windows
两者Connection reliability, location accuracy, session continuity, and cost per usable page

For Walmart, all four providers delivered most first pages with CloakBrowser and none with Patchright. Buying another proxy subscription without changing the browser would have repeated the failure.

Amazon needs a broader sample. Test several exits, keep the browser fixed, and repeat the run at another time of the day. A quality-filtered residential pool gives the collector a better operating base: connections should reach the target, locations should match the request, and sticky sessions should hold when the workflow needs them. The browser still has to work with that route.

NodeMaven 的 用于网页抓取的住宅代理 provide location controls, rotation, and sticky sessions. If you want a managed browser rather than another local setup to maintain, the 爬虫浏览器 supports browser workflows for Amazon and Walmart. Our Amazon scraping guide covers the collection side in more detail.

Choose quality-filtered proxies for Amazon and Walmart scraping

Test NodeMaven residential and mobile proxies with clean IPs, stable sessions, and precise location targeting. Start with 750 MB of traffic for $3.50 and compare performance across browsers.

立即试用

How to compare proxy providers fairly

Start with the production workflow. A test against an IP checker says whether the proxy connects; it says little about five Walmart searches in one session.

  1. Use the exact target and page type your collector needs.
  2. Keep the browser build and settings fixed across providers.
  3. Interleave providers during the same collection window.
  4. Use the same country, session length, request order, and sample size.
  5. Classify the returned content as a result, CAPTCHA, block, empty page, or connection error.
  6. Report the first page separately when later requests share its session.
  7. Repeat the experiment before committing to a large plan.

Proxy-benchmark was built for this kind of comparison. It supports several providers, browser engines, countries, sticky-session settings, and target-specific verdicts. Every attempt becomes a JSONL row rather than disappearing into one average success rate.

Before spending traffic on a target benchmark, use our proxy testing guide to confirm that the proxy connects and returns the intended location.

What to change after a blocked run

Observed resultNext variable to test
Every provider fails in one browser but works in anotherBrowser setup
One provider falls behind in the same browser and windowProxy path and a larger sample of exits
The first page works but later pages failRequest sequence, pacing, and session behavior
Every provider rises or falls togetherTarget behavior and test window
No target response arrivesCredentials, DNS, proxy connection, or transport
A response arrives without resultsCAPTCHA, throttle page, or browser signals

Change one variable, repeat the same requests, and check whether the result follows it. Replacing the proxy, browser, headers, and request timing together produces a new setup, not an explanation.

For the browser branch, our Playwright 爬虫指南 explains how to connect a local script to managed browser infrastructure.

常见问题

The target may be reacting to the browser environment and fingerprint, cookies, request sequence, timing, or another connection signal. In this experiment, the same four provider pools retrieved Walmart results through CloakBrowser but returned only CAPTCHAs through Patchright. Compare browsers before assuming the provider caused the block.

No. A CAPTCHA shows that the target challenged the request, but it does not name the reason. Walmart challenged every Patchright session in this test while serving most first pages through CloakBrowser across the same providers. NodeMaven’s 反爬虫检测工具 can identify the protection systems detected on a target website.

The test did not identify one permanent winner. All four providers delivered 85-100% of Walmart first pages with CloakBrowser and 0% with Patchright. Test the provider with the browser and multi-page sequence used by the production scraper. NodeMaven’s 电商爬虫 supports browser workflows for Walmart and other marketplaces.

使用 residential proxy pool with reliable connections, suitable location controls, and sticky sessions, then test several exits during overlapping windows. This experiment did not produce a stable browser or provider winner for Amazon. Our Amazon scraping guide covers the collection workflow in more detail.

Repeated navigation can give the target more information about the session, pacing, and browser. CloakBrowser delivered 93% of first pages but 22% of pages 2-5 in this test. The experiment observed the decline but did not identify Walmart’s internal rule. Our Playwright 爬虫指南 explains how browser sessions, proxy routing, and returned content can be tested together.

Use the same target, browser build, location, request sequence, and sample size. Interleave the providers during one test window, classify the returned content, and repeat the comparison before choosing a provider. The open-source proxy-benchmark runs this type of controlled comparison, while our proxy testing guide covers basic connection and location checks.

您可能还喜欢 这些文章

本网站使用 Cookie 文件 来提升您的使用体验。继续访问即表示您同意我们使用 Cookie。