dig vs nslookup

When you need to ask DNS a question, two tools compete for your attention: dig and nslookup. Both query nameservers. Both return answers. But they embody fundamentally different ideas about what you need to see.

nslookup tells you the answer. dig shows you the conversation.

Two Philosophies

nslookup (name server lookup) was designed to be helpful in the way a concierge is helpful. Ask a question, get an answer, move on with your day. It filters the noisy details of DNS protocol into something human-readable.

dig (Domain Information Groper) was designed to be helpful in the way a mechanic is helpful. It shows you everything: the question asked, the response received, the timing, the flags, the technical metadata. It assumes that when something goes wrong, you'll need that detail to fix it.

The Same Question, Different Answers

nslookup example.com:

Server:  192.168.1.1
Address: 192.168.1.1#53

Non-authoritative answer:
Name:    example.com
Address: 93.184.216.34

Four lines. Here's who answered, here's what they said. Done.

dig example.com:

; <<>> DiG 9.18.1 <<>> example.com
;; global options: +cmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 12345
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;example.com.                   IN      A

;; ANSWER SECTION:
example.com.            86400   IN      A       93.184.216.34

;; Query time: 12 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.1.1#53(192.168.1.1)
;; WHEN: Mon Jan 15 10:30:45 EST 2024
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 56

The complete transcript. The question you asked. The flags in the response. The TTL (86400 seconds—that's how long this answer can be cached). Query timing. Message size. Everything the DNS server said back, laid bare.

What dig Shows That nslookup Hides

TTL Values

That 86400 in dig's output? It's telling you this record lives in cache for 24 hours. When you change a DNS record and wonder why the old value persists, TTL is the answer. nslookup doesn't show it.

The Resolution Path

dig +trace example.com

This follows the DNS query from root servers through TLD servers to authoritative nameservers—the complete chain of delegation. When DNS breaks, this shows you exactly where. nslookup can't do this.

Script-Friendly Output

dig +short example.com
93.184.216.34

One line. Just the IP. Perfect for shell scripts. nslookup always wraps answers in explanatory text that requires parsing.

DNSSEC Information

dig +dnssec example.com

Cryptographic signatures, validation chains, the security layer of modern DNS. nslookup doesn't speak this language.

What nslookup Does Better

Interactive Mode

nslookup
> example.com
> google.com
> set type=MX
> example.com
> exit

Multiple queries, changing settings, exploring DNS—all in one session. dig is one command, one query. For exploration, nslookup flows more naturally.

Availability on Windows

nslookup is built into every Windows installation. dig requires installing BIND utilities or using WSL. If you're helping someone troubleshoot over the phone and they're on Windows, nslookup is what they have.

Accessibility

The simpler output is less intimidating. When you're showing DNS to someone who doesn't live in terminals, nslookup's clean response doesn't trigger immediate overwhelm.

The Deprecated Tool That Refuses to Die

nslookup was officially deprecated on Linux systems years ago. The recommendation was to use dig or host instead.

Nothing happened. Everyone kept using nslookup. It still ships with every distribution. It still works fine. The deprecation notice became one of those warnings everyone ignores, like "this coffee is hot."

Microsoft, meanwhile, actively maintains nslookup for Windows. It's not going anywhere.

Professional Reality

In Linux and Unix environments, dig is the standard. Network engineers and sysadmins reach for it instinctively. Using nslookup in a professional Linux context marks you as someone who learned DNS on Windows and hasn't updated their toolkit.

In Windows environments, nslookup remains dominant because it's there. Installing dig requires effort that most people won't spend for occasional DNS queries.

Mixed environments increasingly standardize on dig, with Windows users running it through WSL for consistency.

The Syntax Side-by-Side

The Honest Recommendation

If you're doing serious DNS work—troubleshooting propagation, debugging resolution failures, writing automation—learn dig. Its verbosity is the point. That "noise" contains the information you'll need when things break.

If you're on Windows doing occasional lookups, nslookup is fine. It answers the question asked.

If you're learning DNS, start with nslookup to understand the basics, then graduate to dig when you need to see what's actually happening.

Both tools query DNS identically. Both return accurate information. The difference is whether you want the answer or the whole conversation.