Wax deposition in pipelines is associated with relevant economic losses for the industry. Wax deposition inhibitors are among the options available to mitigate the problem, being continuously injected in the flow at low concentrations. Traditionally, the inhibition efficiency of these products for a particular oil sample is assessed in a laboratory equipment know as cold finger. However, a standard is still not available for the design and operation of cold fingers. Also, there is no consensus among operators and inhibitor suppliers as to the level of correlation between the inhibition efficiency found in the laboratory and that in the field. The objective of the present work was to compare wax deposition results obtained in a dynamic cold finger apparatus to those obtained in a pipe flow loop, employing a test solution with controlled properties, with and without inhibitor, In the dynamic cold finger, a cylinder immersed in the oil sample rotates at constant angular velocity producing a Taylor-Couette flow in the cylindrical oil container, which is characterized by complex flow patterns, that are distinct from those found in an oil pipeline. The investigation focused on the influence of the flow hydrodynamic parameters on the wax deposition, represented by the Reynolds number and the dimensionless shear stress imposed at the deposit surface. Tests conducted with model fluids in laminar and turbulent regimes displayed good correlation between the inhibition results obtained in the cold finger apparatus and in the test loop, despite the differences in flow patterns. Turbulent flow testes produced smaller and less porous deposits both, in the cold finger and in test loop. Also observed was a reduction in the deposit porosity in the presence of the inhibitor, independently of the equipment type and operational conditions. Experiments in the cold finger for a second more viscous fluid were conducted to assesses the influence of viscosity on the deposition process, and the expected decrease in the diffusion coefficient for the higher viscosity fluid. Contrary to what was expected, no significant variation was observed on the deposits with the viscosity change. Positive and negative inhibition effects were observed in the tests for the particular inhibitor tested. A more significant influence of the inhibitor, either positive or negative, was observed for tests in laminar flow conditions. The present study revealed that the inhibitor could decrease the total deposited mass while increasing the paraffin deposited mass.