Frequently asked questions

HTTPX is not universally better. It adds a native async API and optional HTTP/2 support, while Requests remains a simple and mature synchronous choice. Select HTTPX when your application already uses asyncio or requires HTTP/2. Select Requests for a conventional synchronous script or an established codebase. Compare connection reuse, timeouts, proxy behavior, and test coverage in your workload before treating a benchmark as a recommendation.

HTTPX can replace Requests for many basic tasks. Migration is not always a drop-in edit, especially in production code. Review exception classes, proxy configuration, TLS settings, adapters, redirect behavior, mocks, and upload or streaming code. Run integration tests against the services you call. A small script may migrate quickly; a library with custom Requests adapters needs a more deliberate plan.

There is no universal speed winner. HTTPX can handle asynchronous concurrency and HTTP/2, which may improve throughput for some workloads. Requests can be perfectly efficient for sequential HTTP/1.1 calls with a reused Session. Server latency, payload size, connection limits, DNS, TLS, and proxy hops often dominate. Benchmark the same URLs, payloads, concurrency, client lifetime, and timeout policy before choosing based on performance claims.

Requests does not provide a native async client API. Running a Requests call in an async application can block the event loop unless you move it to a worker thread or use another integration pattern. If asynchronous network I/O is a core requirement, HTTPX or an async-first client such as aiohttp is usually a cleaner design. Do not label a synchronous call async merely because it runs inside an async function.

Yes, HTTPX can use HTTP/2 when you install its HTTP/2 extra and enable http2=True on the client. The remote server and the path between client and server must still permit negotiation. Inspect response.http_version to see what was actually used. HTTP/2 is a capability, not a guarantee of lower latency, especially for one-off requests or traffic passing through an HTTP/1.1 proxy.

Use HTTPX when a familiar synchronous API, optional async support, or shared sync and async client design matters. Consider aiohttp when your service is async-first and already benefits from its connector, middleware, and ecosystem patterns. Both can be appropriate. Compare cancellation, connection limits, timeout semantics, testing tools, TLS, proxy requirements, and team familiarity using a small representative workload instead of relying on a single benchmark.

Set an explicit timeout and distinguish connection, read, write, and pool delays when the library supports them. Requests commonly uses a scalar or (connect, read) tuple. HTTPX exposes separate timeout categories through httpx.Timeout. Catch timeout exceptions separately from HTTP status errors, then log enough context to diagnose the failing phase. Never assume that a successful connection means the server returned a useful response.

Use Requests or HTTPX when a documented API or static HTTP response contains everything the workflow needs. Use RoxyBrowser when the task requires JavaScript execution, page interaction, persistent cookies, or isolated browser profiles. Teams handling separate, authorized workspaces can review manage multiple accounts for profile organization and access boundaries. If the workflow also needs configured network egress, review RoxyIP separately from the HTTP client decision. HTTPX and Requests do not provide a complete browser fingerprint, rendered DOM, or profile-level storage. A hybrid workflow is often practical: let Python handle APIs and parsing, and reserve RoxyBrowser for authenticated or JavaScript-dependent steps that are explicitly authorized.