ProxyBuyerGuide Methodology

How ProxyBuyerGuide compares proxy products, plans, pricing, limitations, and suitability for specific use cases

ProxyBuyerGuide is an independent proxy provider comparison and review website. We compare residential, mobile, datacenter, ISP/static, and rotating proxy products, as well as selected scraping tools, by examining whether a specific product and plan can meet a defined set of requirements.

Our method is designed to answer a practical question:

Does this specific product and plan fit this specific use case, based on information that can be verified?

We do not assign a result to a provider as a whole. A provider may offer one plan that fits a use case and another plan that does not. Each relevant product and plan must be evaluated separately.

What ProxyBuyerGuide is — and is not

ProxyBuyerGuide helps readers compare proxy providers and related tools. We do not sell proxies directly, accept payment for proxy access, operate a proxy network, or issue proxy credentials.

Some links on ProxyBuyerGuide may be affiliate links. If a reader follows one of these links and completes a qualifying purchase, ProxyBuyerGuide may receive a commission at no extra cost to the reader.

Affiliate status, commission size, provider popularity, and commercial benefit do not change the comparison criteria, evidence rules, match result, or reverification schedule.

The unit we evaluate

Every evaluation is based on the following relationship:

Use case → requirements → product → plan → supporting evidence

This prevents broad provider-level claims from being transferred to products or plans for which they have not been confirmed.

We do not automatically transfer:

• a feature from one plan to another;
• the capabilities of one proxy type to another;
• network-wide geographic claims to a specific product;
• a provider’s lowest advertised price to the cost of a particular use case;
• trial, refund, billing, or renewal terms between products;
• information from an old review to a current plan;
• a marketing statement to a feature that is not supported by applicable documentation or terms.

How a comparison begins

Before comparing products, we define the use case and translate it into testable requirements. Depending on the task, these may include:

• proxy type;
• required country, region, city, state, or carrier targeting;
• rotating or static access;
• rotation controls and minimum session duration;
• protocol and authentication requirements;
• traffic, request, IP, port, user, or connection requirements;
• concurrency limits;
• dedicated or shared access;
• required integrations or access methods;
• acceptable-use restrictions;
• maximum budget, when the budget is a hard constraint.

A product is not treated as suitable merely because it belongs to the right general category. The selected plan must support the requirements that determine whether the task can actually be completed.

Criteria used in comparisons

The criteria applied depend on the use case and product type. Where relevant, ProxyBuyerGuide reviews:

Product and plan identity

• provider;
• product;
• plan;
• availability to new customers;
• billing model;
• minimum purchase or commitment.

Network and access characteristics

• proxy type;
• geographic availability and targeting;
• rotation behavior;
• session controls;
• protocols;
• authentication methods;
• dedicated, shared, static, or rotating access model.

Capacity and limits

• included traffic;
• IP or port allowance;
• request or connection limits;
• concurrency;
• user or sub-user limits;
• expiration and rollover rules;
• published restrictions that affect the use case.

Pricing and purchasing conditions

• currency;
• billing period;
• entry cost;
• minimum package;
• required add-ons;
• geography or feature surcharges;
• renewal terms;
• trial terms;
• refund terms;
• effective cost for the defined scenario.

Evidence and freshness

• source type;
• source reference;
• date accessed;
• last verified date;
• evidence status;
• observed changes;
• unresolved or conflicting information.

The existence of a criterion does not mean that it is relevant to every task. Only requirements that can materially affect the defined use case determine the overall result.

Required, preferred, and informational requirements

Before assigning a result, each requirement is classified.

Required

A required requirement must be met for the plan to solve the defined task. Examples include a required proxy type, country, session length, protocol, traffic allowance, or maximum budget.

Failure to meet one required requirement can make the plan unsuitable.

Preferred

A preferred requirement can improve convenience or value but is not necessary for the task to work. Examples may include city-level targeting, a trial, an API, a browser extension, additional authentication options, or more detailed documentation.

The absence of a preferred feature does not by itself reduce the overall result.

Informational

Informational fields help the reader understand the offer but do not independently determine suitability. Examples include the billing model, renewal process, integrations, last verified date, or refund terms when a refund is not a required condition of the use case.

How evidence is verified

We use the most applicable current official source for each type of claim.

For price, plan composition, and included features, the strongest applicable sources are generally the current checkout, account purchase interface, or official page for the specific plan.

For technical behavior, we prioritize current official documentation for the specific product, followed by applicable product and plan pages.

For billing, renewal, refund, trial, and acceptable-use conditions, we use the current official terms or policy that governs the claim.

A dated response from official support may clarify information for a specific product or plan. It does not override published binding terms unless the applicable official policy has also been updated.

Third-party sources may help identify an issue for investigation, but they do not by themselves support a CONFIRMED evidence status.

Each material value can receive one of four evidence statuses:

• CONFIRMED: directly supported by an applicable current official source;
• CONDITIONAL: supported only under a published condition;
• UNKNOWN: not confirmed in the reviewed public sources;
• CONFLICTING: applicable current sources contain incompatible information that has not been resolved.

We do not replace missing evidence with an assumption. UNKNOWN does not mean that a feature is absent or that a product is poor. It means that the information required for a reliable conclusion could not be confirmed.

How match results are assigned

ProxyBuyerGuide uses four overall results.

MATCH

MATCH means that all required requirements were confirmed for the evaluated product and plan, no published restriction makes the plan unsuitable, required paid options are included in the effective cost, and no required value remains unknown or conflicting.

PARTIAL MATCH

PARTIAL MATCH is used only when all required requirements can be met within the evaluated plan, but at least one is available under a material published condition.

Examples may include manual activation, approval, a regional limitation, a minimum commitment, or a required conditional option within the same plan.

A higher price alone is not a reason for PARTIAL MATCH when no maximum budget was defined. A known, publicly available surcharge is included in the effective cost. If the required capability is available only on another plan, the current plan is evaluated separately and does not receive PARTIAL MATCH merely because an upgrade exists.

NO MATCH

NO MATCH means that at least one required requirement is confirmed as not met.

One confirmed critical mismatch is sufficient. Examples include an unavailable required location, a session duration below the required minimum, insufficient capacity, a prohibited use case, an absent required feature, or an effective cost above a maximum budget that was defined as required.

UNKNOWN

UNKNOWN means that no critical mismatch has been confirmed, but one or more required values are unknown or supported by conflicting evidence.

The standard meaning is:

UNKNOWN — not confirmed in the reviewed public sources.

Decision order

The overall result is assigned in this order:

1. A confirmed mismatch against a required requirement results in NO MATCH.
2. If no such mismatch exists but a required value is unknown or conflicting, the result is UNKNOWN.
3. If all required requirements are achievable but at least one is conditional within the evaluated plan, the result is PARTIAL MATCH.
4. If all required requirements are confirmed without a material conditional restriction, the result is MATCH.

The result is not an average score. Preferred features do not cancel a required mismatch, and a large number of minor benefits does not outweigh one critical failure.

How effective cost is calculated

The lowest advertised price is not necessarily the cost of solving the defined task.

Where the required information is available, Effective Cost includes:

• the minimum required package;
• the required traffic volume;
• the required number of IPs or ports;
• the mandatory billing period;
• required geography or targeting surcharges;
• required dedicated access;
• required paid features or options;
• other published mandatory charges.

If a maximum budget is a required constraint and the effective cost exceeds it, the result is NO MATCH.

If no maximum budget is defined, a higher price does not automatically reduce a technically suitable plan to PARTIAL MATCH. The cost is disclosed separately so readers can compare suitable options.

If a required pricing component cannot be confirmed, the effective cost is reported as unknown rather than estimated from an incomplete headline price.

What every comparison result contains

Where the source data is available, a standardized comparison record includes:

• provider, product, plan, and use case;
• review date and last verified date;
• overall result;
• required and preferred requirements;
• confirmed fit;
• limitations and conditions;
• unknown or conflicting information;
• pricing model, entry cost, effective cost, and extra charges;
• trial, refund, billing, and renewal terms;
• evidence status and observed changes;
• a concise evidence-based reason for the result.

This standard format is intended to make results easier to compare, audit, update, and cite without hiding uncertainty.

Data updates and reverification

Proxy products, prices, limits, terms, and availability can change. A result is therefore a dated finding, not a permanent guarantee.

For every evaluated record:

Next Scheduled Review Date = Last Verified Date + 31 calendar days

If a full check has not been completed by that date, the record becomes REVERIFICATION DUE.

A check may be triggered earlier when a provider changes pricing or documentation, checkout differs from the saved value, a product is renamed or discontinued, a policy changes, a source disappears, or a possible error is reported.

A full reverification checks all evidence needed for the current result, all required requirements, effective cost, material limitations, observed changes, and the overall result.

If a source disappears, an equally applicable or stronger current official source may replace it when the substitution is recorded. If the claim cannot be confirmed, the old value is not automatically treated as current.

An archived page can show what was published in the past. It does not prove that the same condition remains current.

Material changes require all affected use-case, product, and plan combinations to be evaluated again and pass a new QA check.

Freshness statuses are applied in the following order when more than one condition is present:

1. ARCHIVED
2. STALE — DO NOT RELY ON
3. CHANGE DETECTED
4. REVERIFICATION INCOMPLETE
5. REVERIFICATION DUE
6. CURRENT

Age alone does not make a record stale. After the scheduled date, REVERIFICATION DUE is used first. STALE — DO NOT RELY ON is reserved for records that lack sufficient current evidence or otherwise cannot be relied on.

What the methodology does not currently measure

ProxyBuyerGuide does not currently include the following factors in the overall match result unless and until a consistent, repeatable testing method is established:

• speed;
• stability;
• success rate;
• IP quality or reputation;
• support quality;
• commercial value to ProxyBuyerGuide.

We do not present provider marketing claims, isolated tests, user reviews, or affiliate relationships as reproducible benchmark evidence.

This methodology evaluates documented fit, limitations, cost, and evidence. It should not be interpreted as a claim that ProxyBuyerGuide operates a laboratory or has independently benchmarked every network.

Editorial and affiliate independence

The same methodology applies to:

• affiliate and non-affiliate providers;
• large and small providers;
• higher- and lower-ranked providers;
• all evaluated products and plans.

Affiliate status and commission terms do not:

• convert unknown information into confirmed evidence;
• remove a published limitation;
• change a required requirement;
• change the match decision order;
• reduce the depth or frequency of reverification.

If an affiliate relationship exists, it is disclosed. The comparison result remains based on the same published rules.

Limitations and reader responsibility

Public pricing, product availability, account eligibility, geographic access, taxes, and policies may vary by country, currency, account type, purchase date, or negotiated contract.

ProxyBuyerGuide aims to identify and explain these conditions, but readers should confirm current terms with the provider before purchasing. Readers are also responsible for ensuring that their intended use complies with applicable law and the provider’s current acceptable-use policy.

A MATCH result means that the reviewed evidence supports the defined requirements at the stated verification date. It is not a guarantee of future availability, performance, legal suitability, or individual account approval.

Methodology version and updates

Methodology version: 1.0
Effective date: July 30, 2026
Canonical location: https://proxybuyerguide.com/methodology/

This page is the canonical public description of the ProxyBuyerGuide comparison methodology. Material changes to the methodology should be recorded here with the effective date and a concise explanation.

Change record

• Version 1.0 — July 30, 2026: Initial consolidated methodology covering criteria, requirement classification, evidence rules, match results, standardized result reporting, effective cost, and data reverification.

Corrections

If you believe a product, plan, price, limitation, policy, or source has changed, please contact ProxyBuyerGuide through our Contact page and include the provider, product, plan, affected page, and current official source.

ProxyBuyerGuide reviews correction reports under the same evidence and reverification rules used for all providers.