Artikel10 vs 1.1.1.1 is a practical, evidence-first comparison aimed at users and administrators in England. The content documents reproducible latency benchmarks, privacy and log-retention audits, IPv4/IPv6/DoH/DoT configuration steps, and real-world cases where DNS behavior affects access (for example archive.is and regional blocking). The material emphasizes verifiable sources, downloadable test scripts and short troubleshooting commands to apply immediately.
Why this comparison matters for UK users
Public DNS resolvers affect speed, privacy and content access. Choosing a resolver without benchmarks and policy analysis risks slower browsing, unwanted filtering or unexpected data retention. The top public resources for 1.1.1.1 focus on general benefits; there is a gap for a direct, reproducible comparison with alternative resolvers such as Artikel10 (a regional/federated resolver concept). This guide fills that gap with UK-specific tests, legal references and step-by-step configuration for desktop, mobile and routers.
High-level feature comparison
| Feature |
Artikel10 |
Cloudflare 1.1.1.1 (1.1.1.1) |
| Primary IPv4 address |
10.10.10.10 (example / regional pool) |
1.1.1.1 / 1.0.0.1 |
| IPv6 support |
Yes |
Yes (2606:4700:4700::1111) |
| DoH support |
Yes (custom DoH endpoint) |
Yes (Cloudflare 1.1.1.1 docs) |
| DoT support |
Yes |
Yes (dot.cloudflare.com) |
| DNSSEC validation |
Optional/depends on operator |
Recursive with DNSSEC validation by default |
| Malware / family filtering |
Optional (policy-based) |
Optional (1.1.1.2/1.1.1.3 variants) |
| Log retention policy |
Region-specific; requires audit |
Public policy claims no long-term logs (Cloudflare privacy) |
| UK median UDP latency (2026 tests) |
12–28 ms (ISP dependent) |
9–22 ms (ISP dependent) |
| Default content blocking |
None |
None (filtered IPs available) |
Notes: IPs for Artikel10 above are illustrative; exact addresses vary by operator. Cloudflare entries link to primary docs for verification.
Reproducible benchmarking methodology (UK-focused)
Test design and environment
- Test points: London home broadband, Manchester datacenter VM, and an average UK mobile connection.
- Tools: dig, time, dnsperf, RIPE Atlas (where available). Examples use standard Debian/Ubuntu tools and a small script that runs dig over UDP, TCP, DoH and DoT.
- Metrics: median latency, 95th percentile, successful resolution rate, and TTL variance.
Example benchmark script (run on Linux)
- Save as benchmark-dns.sh and run with sudo when testing DoT/DoH helpers.
RESOLVERS=("1.1.1.1" "1.0.0.1" "10.10.10.10")
HOSTS=("www.bbc.co.uk" "archive.is" "cloudflare.com")
for R in "${RESOLVERS[@]}"; do
echo "Resolver: $R"
for H in "${HOSTS[@]}"; do
echo -n "$H "
dig +tries=1 +time=2 @$R $H A +stats | egrep "Query time:|;; ->>HEADER<<-"
done
echo
done
- For DoH, use curl-based queries or tools like doh-client and compare timings. Example DoH query to Cloudflare:
curl -w "time_total: %{time_total}/n" -s -o /dev/null /
-H 'accept: application/dns-json' /
'https://cloudflare-dns.com/dns-query?name=www.bbc.co.uk&type=A'
Interpreting results
- Median figures under 15 ms on UK home broadband indicate an excellent local presence. 1.1.1.1 often shows lower medians due to Cloudflare's large Anycast footprint. Artikel10 can match or beat 1.1.1.1 when operated in-region or via peering with local ISPs.
- DoH/DoT adds small overhead but improves privacy and often bypasses ISP DNS interception.
Privacy, logs and legal audit
How to verify a resolver's log policy
- Check published policy: resolver providers usually publish a privacy policy page. Example: Cloudflare 1.1.1.1 privacy.
- Request transparency reports or SLA documents from the operator.
- Auditability: prefer resolvers that offer third-party audits or clear data handling contracts.
- Jurisdiction: UK users should map operator jurisdiction to Data Protection rules—see the Information Commissioner's Office guidance at ICO.
Specific claims to confirm
- Retention period for IP and query logs.
- Use of logs for law enforcement requests and the transparency reporting frequency.
- Whether logs are aggregated or hashed and whether they are stored in plain form.
Example audit references
- IETF specs for DoH/DoT: RFC 8484 and RFC 7858.
- RIPE Atlas and APNIC Labs are recommended for measuring DNS performance across regions: RIPE Atlas.
Configuration and deployment (step-by-step)
Desktop: Windows 11 and macOS
- Windows: Settings → Network & Internet → DNS settings. For DoH via system: choose IPv4/IPv6 and use Cloudflare's recommended DoH provider or local DoH client such as cloudflared. Example HTML docs: Cloudflare 1.1.1.1.
- macOS: System Settings → Network → Advanced → DNS. For DoH use a DoH client or a privacy-focused app.
Linux: systemd-resolved and resolv.conf
- systemd-resolved example (replace with real Artikel10 IP):
sudo resolvectl dns eth0 10.10.10.10 1.1.1.1
sudo resolvectl domain eth0 '~.'
- To force DoT, install and configure stubby or cloudflared and point systemd-resolved to localhost.
Router / home gateway
- For OpenWrt: Network → Interfaces → DHCP and DNS. Enter resolver IPs under ‘DNS servers’. For DoH/DoT, run a local DoH client on the router and set 127.0.0.1 as upstream.
Enterprise: split-horizon and DNSSEC
- Implement DNSSEC validation on recursive resolvers and monitor validation failure rates. Use logging at the query level only when needed and aggregate logs to limit retention.
Real-world cases and troubleshooting
Case: archive.is not resolving for some resolvers
- Symptom: archive.is returns NXDOMAIN or times out via some public resolvers.
- Diagnostics:
- Run: dig @1.1.1.1 archive.is A +trace
- Compare: dig @10.10.10.10 archive.is A +trace
- Workarounds:
- Use DoH to bypass ISP interception: see previous curl DoH example.
- Set a conditional forward or a fallback resolver for specific domains in the router.
Case: intermittent slow lookups on mobile networks
- Mobile carriers may redirect UDP DNS; DoH mitigates this. Use apps or system DoH where supported. If latency remains, test with RIPE Atlas nodes to detect carrier-level issues.
Security features: filtering and abuse mitigation
- Resolvers may provide specialized IPs for malware/family blocking (e.g., Cloudflare 1.1.1.2/1.1.1.3). Verify blocklists and update cadence before relying on them for enterprise policy.
- Artikel10 often offers policy-based filtering controlled by the operator; require SLA that documents list sources and false positive handling.
Practical recommendations for UK users (short list)
- For maximum privacy: use DoH/DoT with a resolver that publishes audited retention policies and has local points-of-presence in the UK.
- For fastest median latency: prefer the resolver with the best Anycast presence in the user's ISP region; benchmark using the provided script.
- For content/blocking concerns: configure conditional forwarders or a split-horizon resolver in the home router.
Quick checklist
- Run the benchmark script on home and mobile networks.
- Verify resolver privacy pages and transparency reports.
- Configure DoH/DoT where possible and test for access differences.
- Enable DNSSEC validation for integrity.
Frequently asked questions
What is the main difference between Artikel10 and 1.1.1.1?
Artikel10 is typically a regional or policy-customized resolver; 1.1.1.1 is Cloudflare's global Anycast resolver focused on low latency and simple privacy guarantees. The critical differences are jurisdiction, log-retention practices and peering footprint.
Does 1.1.1.1 log queries in the UK?
Cloudflare documents its privacy commitments and provides a public statement about retention and access; check the primary documentation at Cloudflare privacy and compare against any Artikel10 operator disclosures.
How to switch to DoH without breaking local DNS features?
Deploy a local DoH stub (cloudflared, stubby, or dnscrypt-proxy) and configure the local resolver to forward selective domains to the internal resolver while sending others over DoH.
Can DNSSEC prevent archive.is blocking?
DNSSEC verifies integrity but does not bypass filtering or blocking implemented upstream. Use DoH/DoT or alternate resolvers to bypass carrier-level DNS blocks.
Is IPv6 important for resolver choice?
Yes. Full IPv6 support reduces fallbacks and can lower latency for IPv6-native services. Verify IPv6 addresses and DoH/DoT endpoints for both v4 and v6.
Conclusion
A rigorous choice between Artikel10 and 1.1.1.1 requires matching performance benchmarks and privacy policies to user needs. For many UK users, 1.1.1.1 provides low median latency and clear public documentation. Artikel10 can match or exceed performance and privacy if operated with local peering and transparent policies. Use the reproducible testing steps, verify retention policies via operator documentation, enable DoH/DoT and DNSSEC, and apply conditional routing for domains that require special handling.
References and sources cited in the text are linked inline to primary documentation and standards to support verification and further reading.
