Evomi vs NodeMaven: Filtered Residential Proxy Pools Compared (2026)

NodeMaven's residential traffic starts at $2.20/GB. Evomi's starts at $0.49. Both vendors are making the same argument against the rest of the proxy market: that a smaller network of screened addresses beats a larger network of unknown ones. Most of the category competes on headline IP counts instead, a number that costs nothing to inflate and says almost nothing about whether your next request succeeds.

They arrive at that position from different directions. Evomi is Switzerland-based, sits at the bottom of the market on price, and documents its targeting and session controls in unusual detail. NodeMaven prices a proprietary filter into every gigabyte, screening addresses before it assigns them. If pool hygiene is the axis you care about, these are the two to put side by side.

Everything below that comes from a vendor page was read on 2026-07-27 and is attributed to the page it came from. Prices in this category move, so treat the numbers as observations with a date on them, not as a rate card.

The claim both are making

The pitch is easier to evaluate once you separate two failure modes that look identical from the outside. A crawl can fail because the target rate-limits addresses and you ran out of fresh ones. It can also fail because the address you were handed was already burned by someone else's traffic before you touched it. The first is a pool size problem. The second is a pool hygiene problem, and no amount of additional addresses fixes it if they are drawn from the same degraded supply.

Filtered-pool vendors are betting that most teams are hitting the second failure and misdiagnosing it as the first. That is a defensible read of the market. It is also unfalsifiable from the buyer's seat, because neither vendor publishes what its filter tests for. Our guide to why scrapers get blocked covers the diagnostic work that tells the two apart before you buy either.

Pricing

Evomi's pricing page on 2026-07-27 listed residential at $0.49/GB, with a 100GB monthly plan at $49.99 and pay-as-you-go at $0.49 per extra gigabyte. Mobile is tiered from $3.75/GB at the 8GB entry point down to $2.20/GB at 5,000GB, with pay-as-you-go mobile at $4.00/GB. The directory entry also records datacenter at $0.35/GB and static residential at $1.00/IP.

NodeMaven's pricing page the same day started residential and mobile at $2.20/GB on monthly plans, with static ISP from $2.99/IP. Its smallest monthly plan was $8.50 for 2GB, and the page stated that unused traffic rolls over to the next billing period rather than expiring.

So NodeMaven's residential entry price is roughly what Evomi charges for mobile traffic at volume. The filter carries a 4x premium, and that premium sets the bar it has to clear. The rollover term claws some of it back for teams with lumpy volume, since unused Evomi allowance on a monthly plan is a real cost that per-GB comparisons ignore. Our guide to proxy pricing models covers how to normalise these into cost per successful page, which is the only figure that settles a gap that wide.

Session control, where the specs diverge

Evomi documents its session behaviour precisely enough to plan against. Its residential documentation specifies two parameters, session and hardsession, each a unique alphanumeric string of 6 to 10 characters. Maximum session lifetime is 120 minutes. If you do not specify one, the session lasts 40 minutes. Requests exceeding the ceiling return a 412. The distinction between the two parameters matters: the docs note that session "may change IP address in favor of stability," while hardsession holds the address.

That is an honest piece of documentation. It tells you the soft session will silently swap the IP underneath you to keep the connection alive, which is the behaviour that corrupts a logged-in scrape and is exactly what most vendors leave unstated.

NodeMaven advertises sticky sessions up to 24 hours on residential and mobile. Taken at face value that is an order of magnitude past Evomi's ceiling, and for workflows that hold one identity across a long authenticated session it would be decisive.

It should not be taken entirely at face value. Proxyway's NodeMaven review, last tested July 2025, found that 38.2% of sessions ran beyond 25 minutes and stated the result did not quite live up to the marketing claims. That is a year-old measurement against a network that may have changed since, and it is one reviewer's methodology rather than a standard. But it is the only independent check on the number that we could reach, and it points the same way: the 24 hours is a ceiling, not an expectation.

The useful reading is that NodeMaven's realistic session tail extends past Evomi's hard cap, while falling well short of its own headline. If your workflow needs a session that survives four hours, Evomi cannot do it by specification and NodeMaven might. If it needs 90 minutes, both are in range and the price difference decides.

What can be verified about the filter

Proxyway's July 2025 review is also the only external evidence we found on the filtering claim itself, and it is more favourable than the session finding. The reviewer reported that NodeMaven's quality filter on its medium setting reduced average fraud score from 10.94 to 4.4, and described the filtering as effective. Measured success rates in that test ran 99.44% on the global gateway, 99.21% US and 99.50% UK on small pages, dropping to 78.35% against real-world targets at 4.22 seconds average. The reviewer counted nearly 300,000 unique IPs in the US and 200,000 in the UK, with 97.47% classified as residential.

Two caveats travel with that. The first is age: July 2025 is a year before this writing. The second is a limitation the review names directly, and it is the single most important thing on this page for anyone running a large crawl. NodeMaven's quality filter only works with sticky sessions. If your architecture rotates per request, which is the default shape for wide crawls and the behaviour described in our rotating proxy entry, the filter you are paying the premium for does not apply to your traffic. That turns the entire value proposition off for a large class of buyer.

We found no comparable independent measurements for Evomi. Its directory entry notes that Proxyway and HostAdvice reviews support its success-rate and uptime claims, but we have not checked those figures against the reviews themselves, so treat Evomi's performance as unmeasured here rather than as matched or beaten. Our guide to reading scraping benchmarks explains why cross-vendor numbers from different test harnesses should not be compared directly anyway.

Targeting below country level

ZIP-level targeting usually gets filed as NodeMaven's differentiator. Both vendors' documentation says otherwise.

NodeMaven advertises country, city and ISP targeting, with ZIP-level targeting across 150+ locations. Evomi's expert settings documentation lists ZIP targeting as _zip-<zipcode> with the example _zip-90210, ISP targeting as _isp-comcast, and ASN targeting as _asn-AS7922. ASN selection is a level finer than NodeMaven advertises, and it is the more useful knob when a target scores the network an address belongs to rather than its postal geography.

Call this parity on postal codes, with Evomi ahead on network-level selection and NodeMaven claiming wider ZIP coverage. Neither publishes address counts per ZIP, which is the number that determines whether narrow targeting leaves you with a workable pool or three addresses. Our post on geo-targeting granularity argues that most collection jobs need coarser targeting than they buy, and that argument applies to both of these vendors.

The pool size tradeoff, made explicit

Evomi does one thing here that deserves credit. Its expert settings include an extended pool flag, _extended-1, which the documentation says provides access to a 4 to 6 times larger IP pool and cannot be combined with other expert filters. That is the tradeoff stated as a product decision: you can have the screened, narrowly targetable pool, or you can have reach, and you choose per request.

NodeMaven does not expose an equivalent switch. Its filter is a quality setting rather than a reach setting, and the pool you get is the pool the algorithm leaves you. For a buyer who wants to reason about the tradeoff rather than trust it, Evomi's design is easier to work with.

On raw claimed scale, Evomi reports 54M+ IPs across 150+ countries and NodeMaven claims 30M+ residential IPs across 190+ countries with 250,000+ mobile IPs and 1,400+ locations. Both are vendor figures, both are unaudited, and Proxyway's independent US and UK counts for NodeMaven came in far below what a 30M global figure would imply for those markets. Headline pool counts across vendors are not a comparable unit, which is the whole reason this comparison is organised around hygiene instead.

Head to head

What each one is bad at

Evomi's hard 120-minute session ceiling is a genuine functional limit, not a tuning parameter. Any workflow that needs to hold one address for an afternoon is out of scope, and no configuration gets around a documented 412. Narrowing with expert filters shrinks the pool, and the extended pool that would compensate cannot be combined with them. The company is young by the standards of this market, reported as founded around 2024 with no disclosed funding, which is a real procurement risk when you are routing production traffic through it. And we could not reproduce independent performance measurements for it here, so its quality claims are in a weaker evidentiary position than NodeMaven's on this page, not a stronger one.

NodeMaven's problems start with price. It is roughly 4.5x Evomi's residential entry cost, and the thing you are buying with the premium is switched off for rotating traffic. Proxyway's review also found weak Asia-Pacific infrastructure, difficulty with large pages and Google CAPTCHA challenges, and limited KYC procedures. That last one is worth weighing against Evomi's reported ISO certifications and EWDCI membership if your legal team asks where the addresses come from, a question our guide to residential proxy IP sourcing treats as a procurement gate rather than a footnote. There is also no free tier; the cheapest way in is the $3.50 trial.

Neither vendor lets you verify the filter its pitch rests on. That is the state of the category rather than a failing unique to these two.

Trialling both without pretending to benchmark

Both sell small enough increments that a real trial costs less than an afternoon of engineering time. Buy the minimum from each, point them at the five URLs that currently break your crawl, and record outcomes per address rather than in aggregate. Distinct IP count, first-use failure rate, and observed session survival are the three numbers that distinguish these two. Aggregate success rate will not, because both will report a high one against easy targets.

Run them concurrently rather than in sequence. Target defences change week to week, and a sequential trial measures the calendar as much as the vendor. If you end up wanting both, our guide to multi-proxy vendor failover covers routing between two networks without doubling your integration surface.

Who each one is wrong for

Evomi is wrong for the team whose blocker is session longevity. If your target requires holding one residential address through a multi-hour authenticated flow, the 120-minute cap ends the conversation regardless of price. It is also wrong for anyone whose procurement process requires a long operating history or disclosed funding behind a production dependency.

NodeMaven is wrong for the high-volume rotating crawl. If you rotate per request, you pay a 4x premium for a filter that, per Proxyway's testing, does not apply to your traffic, and you would be better served by cheaper bulk bandwidth from Decodo, IPRoyal or Webshare. It is also the wrong first call for Asia-Pacific targets given the coverage weakness that review identified.

Both are wrong for the buyer whose actual problem is an anti-bot system doing browser fingerprinting rather than address reputation. No pool hygiene fixes a TLS fingerprint mismatch, and the fix belongs in the client stack. Both are also wrong at the top of the market: if you need mobile IPs at scale, packaged datasets or a negotiated enterprise contract, the comparison you want is Bright Data vs Oxylabs, with SOAX as the granular-targeting alternative in the tier between. Our guide to picking a proxy type by target is the better starting point if you have not yet established that residential is what you need.