Nothing here is a hit piece. Lurk has customers who are well served by it, and this page says which ones. It also says where we think the model costs a buyer money.
Lurk on the record
Lurk operates from lurk.info. Our classification for them is web proxy.
What we do not hold is a current, sourced price for Lurk. Rather than print a figure we cannot stand behind, this page leaves it out and tells you what to look for when you read their page yourself.
Note the price, the unit it is quoted in, the minimum, and the expiry. Unit and expiry are where most comparisons in this market quietly go wrong.
Longevity, on the public record
The domain was registered on 2 May 2026, through Dynadot Inc, which makes it about 0 years old. Those dates come from a registry query on 9 September 2026. Their registration is booked through 2 May 2027.
Read that as a floor rather than a recommendation. Longevity says somebody has kept paying the registrar, and in a market with this much churn that is worth ten seconds of your attention.
The demand around this name
The Keyword Planner puts brand demand at 10 a month: 10 a month for a review of them. Figures read from Google Keyword Planner on 9 September 2026.
Weighted towards people checking whether to trust it. A comparison that ignores that and opens with a pitch has misread the room.
Where published figures stop being useful
Logging, and who can read it
A service with no stated retention period has one anyway, and it is whatever their hosting provider does by default. Absence of a policy is a policy, and usually not the one you would choose.
Why the pool number is the least useful figure
Nobody audits pool totals in this market, and the counting rules differ between vendors. Even an accurate figure describes addresses that exist, not addresses you will be routed through. Treat it as a marketing unit rather than a capability.
The reputation you inherit
An address you share carries the reputation of everyone else on it. That is acceptable for some work and fatal for anything involving a login. The price difference between shared and dedicated usually reflects exactly this.
A comparison that admits what it cannot say
The rows below are the ones that change what you pay and whether the job runs:
| Question to ask | Lurk | HProxy |
|---|---|---|
| Entry price | Not verified by us, read their page | From $0.44/GB, pay as you go |
| Does unused balance expire? | Check the current terms, this one moves | Never |
| Minimum commitment | Not published clearly, ask before paying | None |
| Identity checks | On their own terms page | Card orders are screened, and verification is sometimes requested |
| Targeting | Not published clearly, ask before paying | Country, city and ISP |
| Free way to evaluate | On their own terms page | Free proxy list and proxy checker |
That comparison covers what is publishable. What is not publishable, and what actually decides this, is how many of your requests come back correct.
How to settle it yourself in ten minutes
Run this before you commit any volume. It replaces every opinion on this page, including ours.
- Open an account on each and add the smallest amount they take. Skip the trial if a paid unit is cheap enough to buy outright.
- Point both at your real target, through your real tool, on the same day, with the same mix of requests.
- Log successes, failures and gigabytes used. Cost per successful request is the figure you are after.
- Verify a slice of the exits independently. Country labels in this market are self-reported and are not always right.
- Buy the one that won on your target, and diarise a re-test in three months.
The other names that come up
Other providers in the same bracket, priced and dated the same way:
- Trueproxy alternatives
- Truthsilo alternatives
- Ultimateprox alternatives
- Ultimateproxy alternatives
- Ultrafun alternatives
- Unblockfreeproxy alternatives
Where HProxy sits in that test
We sell residential proxies from $0.44 per GB with no subscription and a balance that does not expire, plus ISP, mobile and datacenter in the same account. That is the pitch, and the test above is a better judge of it than this paragraph.
