Network Programming in .NET

When implementing automated systems that need to solve reCAPTCHA v3 challenges, choosing the right solver service can significantly impact both your success rate and operational costs. We conducted a comprehensive benchmark test of five popular reCAPTCHA v3 solving services to compare their performance in terms of both speed and quality scores.

The Results

We tested five major captcha solving services: CapSolver, 2Captcha, AntiCaptcha, NextCaptcha, and DeathByCaptcha. Each service was evaluated both with and without residential proxy support (using Decodo residential proxies).

Speed Performance Rankings

Fastest to Slowest (without proxy):

1. CapSolver – 3,383ms (3.4 seconds)
2. NextCaptcha – 6,725ms (6.7 seconds)
3. DeathByCaptcha – 16,212ms (16.2 seconds)
4. AntiCaptcha – 17,069ms (17.1 seconds)
5. 2Captcha – 36,149ms (36.1 seconds)

With residential proxy:

1. CapSolver – 5,101ms (5.1 seconds)
2. NextCaptcha – 10,875ms (10.9 seconds)
3. DeathByCaptcha – 10,861ms (10.9 seconds)
4. 2Captcha – 25,749ms (25.7 seconds)
5. AntiCaptcha – Failed (task type not supported with proxy)

Quality Score Results

Here’s where the results become particularly interesting: all services that successfully completed the challenge returned identical scores of 0.10. This uniformly low score across all providers suggests we’re observing a fundamental characteristic of how these services interact with Google’s reCAPTCHA v3 system rather than differences in solver quality.

What Do These Results Tell Us?

1. The Score Mystery

A reCAPTCHA v3 score of 0.10 is at the very bottom of Google’s scoring range (0.0-1.0), indicating that Google’s system detected these tokens as very likely originating from bots. This consistent result across all five services reveals several important insights:

Why such low scores?

• reCAPTCHA v3 uses machine learning trained on actual site traffic patterns
• Without established traffic history, the system defaults to suspicious scores
• Commercial solver services are inherently detectable by Google’s sophisticated fingerprinting
• The test environment may lack the organic traffic patterns needed for v3 to generate higher scores

As mentioned in our research, CleanTalk found that reCAPTCHA v3 often returns consistent scores in test environments without production traffic. The system needs time to “learn” what normal traffic looks like for a given site before it can effectively differentiate between humans and bots.

2. Speed is the Real Differentiator

Since all services returned the same quality score, speed becomes the primary differentiator:

CapSolver emerged as the clear winner, solving challenges in just 3.4 seconds without proxy and 5.1 seconds with proxy. This represents a 10x speed advantage over the slowest service (2Captcha at 36 seconds).

NextCaptcha came in second place with respectable times of 6.7 seconds (no proxy) and 10.9 seconds (with proxy), making it a solid middle-ground option.

DeathByCaptcha and AntiCaptcha performed similarly at around 16-17 seconds without proxy, though AntiCaptcha failed to support proxy-based solving for this captcha type.

2Captcha was significantly slower at 36 seconds without proxy, though it did improve to 25.7 seconds with proxy enabled.

3. Proxy Support Variations

Proxy support proved inconsistent across services:

• Most services handled proxies well, with CapSolver, NextCaptcha, DeathByCaptcha, and 2Captcha all successfully completing challenges through residential proxies
• AntiCaptcha failed with proxy, returning an “ERROR_TASK_NOT_SUPPORTED” error, suggesting their proxy-based reCAPTCHA v3 implementation may have limitations
• Proxy impact on speed varied: Some services (2Captcha) were faster with proxy, while others (CapSolver, NextCaptcha) were slower

4. Success Rates

All services except AntiCaptcha (with proxy) achieved 100% success rates, meaning they reliably returned valid tokens. However, the validity of a token doesn’t correlate with its quality score—all tokens were valid but all received low scores from Google.

Practical Implications

For High-Volume Operations

If you’re processing thousands of captchas daily, CapSolver’s 3-5 second solve time provides a massive throughput advantage. At scale, this speed difference translates to:

• Processing 1,000 captchas with CapSolver: ~56 minutes
• Processing 1,000 captchas with 2Captcha: ~10 hours

For Quality-Sensitive Applications

The uniform 0.10 scores reveal a hard truth: commercial reCAPTCHA v3 solvers may not produce high-quality tokens that pass strict score thresholds. If your target site requires scores above 0.5 or 0.7, these services may not be suitable regardless of which one you choose.

Cost Considerations

Since all services returned the same quality, cost-per-solve becomes the tiebreaker alongside speed:

• CapSolver: ~$1.00 per 1,000 solves
• 2Captcha: ~$2.99 per 1,000 solves
• AntiCaptcha: ~$2.00 per 1,000 solves

CapSolver offers the best speed-to-cost ratio in this comparison.

The Bigger Picture: reCAPTCHA v3 Limitations

These results illuminate a broader challenge with reCAPTCHA v3 solver services. Google’s v3 system is fundamentally different from v2:

• v2 presented challenges that could be solved by humans or AI
• v3 analyzes behavior patterns, browser fingerprints, and site-specific traffic history

Commercial solvers can generate valid tokens, but those tokens carry telltale signatures that Google’s machine learning readily identifies. The consistently low scores suggest that Google has effective detection mechanisms for solver-generated traffic.

When Might Scores Improve?

Based on research and documentation:

1. Production environments with real organic traffic may see better scores
2. Time – letting reCAPTCHA v3 “train” on a site for days or weeks
3. Mixed traffic – solver tokens mixed with legitimate user traffic
4. Residential proxies – though our test showed this alone doesn’t improve scores

Conclusions and Recommendations

If Speed Matters Most

Choose CapSolver. Its 3-5 second solve times are unmatched, and at $1 per 1,000 solves, it’s also the most cost-effective option.

If You Need Proxy Support

Avoid AntiCaptcha for proxy-based v3 solving. CapSolver, NextCaptcha, and DeathByCaptcha all handled residential proxies successfully.

If Quality Scores Matter

Reconsider using solver services entirely. The uniform 0.10 scores suggest that commercial solvers may not be suitable for sites with strict score requirements. Consider alternative approaches:

• Browser automation with real user simulation
• Residential proxy networks with actual human solvers
• Challenging whether reCAPTCHA v3 is the right solution for your use case

The Bottom Line

For raw performance in a test environment, CapSolver dominated with the fastest solve times and lowest cost. However, the universal 0.10 quality scores across all services reveal that speed and cost may be moot points if your application requires high-quality scores that pass Google’s bot detection.

The real takeaway? reCAPTCHA v3 is doing its job—it successfully identifies solver-generated tokens regardless of which service you use. If you need high scores, you’ll need more sophisticated approaches than simply purchasing tokens from commercial solving services.

---

This benchmark was conducted in January 2026 using production API credentials for all services. Tests were performed with both direct connections and residential proxy infrastructure. Individual results may vary based on site configuration, traffic patterns, and Google’s evolving detection systems.