Linkdexing and IndexPro are built on the same commercial idea, which makes this an unusually clean comparison. Both sell credits rather than subscriptions, both let those credits sit unused indefinitely, and neither locks you into a monthly plan. If you liked Linkdexing's billing model, you will not find IndexPro's alien.
The differences are price and, much more importantly, time. Linkdexing is explicit that its process is manual and takes around two weeks. That is the thing most people are looking to change when they search for an alternative.
All figures below were checked on 20 September 2026 against each provider's own site.
The short answer
- Stay with Linkdexing if a two-week turnaround is fine and you value a hands-on, manually processed service at a flat, simple rate.
- Use IndexPro if you need links moving sooner than a fortnight, or you want a lower cost per link on bulk work.
- Both are credit-based with no subscription, so switching does not mean taking on a recurring bill.
Pricing
Linkdexing
One flat rate, no tiers to compare.
| What you buy | Price | Per link |
|---|---|---|
| Entry package, 200 links | $10 | $0.05 |
| Free credits on signup | 10 credits | Free |
Their site states there is "no monthly subscription" and that "links credit do not expire until fully used". The ten free credits are a genuine advantage: you can test the service on real links before paying anything at all.
IndexPro
Also credits, also no subscription, but spent at two different rates depending on speed: 20 credits per URL for standard indexing or 70 for instant.
| Package | Price | Standard URLs | Per URL | Instant URLs | Per URL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 75 links | $3 | 75 | $0.040 | 21 | $0.143 |
| 345 links | $12 | 345 | $0.035 | 98 | $0.122 |
| 1,500 links | $40 | 1,500 | $0.027 | 428 | $0.093 |
| 7,500 links | $200 | 7,500 | $0.027 | 2,142 | $0.093 |
| 75,000 links | $1,300 | 75,000 | $0.017 | 21,428 | $0.061 |
Current packages are listed on the pricing section.
The same job, priced three ways
| Option | 2,000 links | Typical wait |
|---|---|---|
| IndexPro standard | $80 (the $80 package covers 3,000) | Slower tier |
| Linkdexing | $100 at $0.05 per link | Around 2 weeks, manual |
| IndexPro instant | $200 (the $200 package covers 2,142) | Fast tier |
Linkdexing sits between IndexPro's two tiers on price. IndexPro's standard tier undercuts it by roughly 20% at the entry package and closer to 45% at the $40 package and above. Its instant tier costs more, which is the trade you make for not waiting two weeks.
The two-week question
This is the heart of it. Linkdexing's FAQ answers "how long does it take to index the links?" with: "The whole process is manual and takes around 2 weeks to get best indexing rate." Their features section explains why, describing "100% Manual Work" carried out by "a dedicated team of 4 people".
Whether that is a drawback depends entirely on the work:
- Tier-two links, PBN pages, bulk directory work. Two weeks is irrelevant. You submitted them and moved on.
- A client placement you are reporting on this month. Two weeks is most of your reporting window.
- A page you are actively tracking rankings for. Two weeks is a long time to not know whether the link counts.
If you are searching for a Linkdexing alternative, the wait is the most likely reason, and it is the one thing a faster tier actually solves.
Credit where it is due
Two things on Linkdexing's site are more honest than most of this industry manages, and they are worth repeating.
First, asked "Do you guarantee 100% indexing rate?", their answer is "No we don't." They then name exactly why: "Some domains with 'No index' tag, blocked by robot.txt, redirects etc will never index." That is correct, and it is the same advice worth giving before you buy from anyone, including us. Check the technical basics first, because no service overrides a noindex tag.
Second, they describe their 96% figure as coming from "beta testing" and add that it "depends on many factors and is not guaranteed" rather than presenting it as a headline promise.
Treat that 96% as unverified all the same, because it is self-reported with no published methodology. IndexPro does not publish a verified success rate either, so apply exactly the same scepticism in both directions. The only number that means anything is the one you measure on your own links.
Feature comparison
| Feature | IndexPro | Linkdexing |
|---|---|---|
| Price per link | $0.017 to $0.040 standard, $0.061 to $0.143 instant | $0.05 flat |
| Billing | Credits, no subscription | Credits, no subscription |
| Credits expire | No | No |
| Entry price | $3 for 75 links | $10 for 200 links |
| Free trial | None | 10 free credits on signup |
| Typical turnaround | Two tiers, standard and instant | Around 2 weeks |
| Method | Automated submission | Manual, team of 4 |
| Speed options | Two | One |
| Published success rate | Not published | 96% claimed from beta testing, not guaranteed |
| Guarantee | None | None, stated plainly |
| Search Console required | No | No |
| API | Yes | Not advertised |
| Mobile app | Android | None |
Which should you use?
Choose Linkdexing if you are happy to wait, you prefer one flat price with nothing to calculate, or you want to try an indexing service without spending anything. Ten free credits is a real offer and there is no reason not to use it.
Choose IndexPro if two weeks is too long for the links you care about, you want the option to pay more for speed on some batches and less on others, or you are indexing at volume where a 45% lower unit cost compounds.
A sensible split: bulk tier-two work through whichever is cheaper at your volume, and a fast tier for the handful of links you are actively watching. Neither service charges a subscription, so running both costs nothing extra.
Why results vary either way
No service can make Google index a page. What they do is get a URL crawled, which Google will generally do on request. Indexing is a separate judgement made afterwards, on the merits of the page, which is why any service returns very different rates on different batches.
The variables are mostly yours: whether the page carrying the link is itself indexed, how much crawl demand the domain has earned, whether the content is thin or duplicated, and whether a noindex tag, a canonical pointing elsewhere or a non-200 status is blocking it outright. Linkdexing names those same blockers on their own site, and they are right to.
Run the linking pages through a bulk index checker before you spend anything. Cleaning a batch beforehand usually improves the apparent success rate more than switching provider does. If a whole campaign is failing, why backlinks fail to get indexed covers the causes in more depth.
FAQ
Is IndexPro cheaper than Linkdexing?
On standard indexing, yes, by roughly 20% at the entry package and around 45% from the $40 package upward. On instant indexing, no, it costs more, which buys speed.
How long does Linkdexing take?
Their FAQ says around two weeks, because the process is manual. That is stated openly rather than buried.
Do credits expire with either service?
No. Both sell credits that remain usable until spent, with no monthly commitment.
Is a manual method better than an automated one?
Neither company publishes evidence either way, so this cannot be answered honestly from marketing copy. Test both on the same batch of links and compare.
What success rate should I expect?
For bulk backlink work, results vary enormously with the quality of the linking pages. Treat every published figure, from any provider including this one, as unverified until you have measured it on your own links.
The verdict
Linkdexing is a straightforward service with a flat price, no subscription, a free trial and unusually candid answers about what it cannot do. If the two-week turnaround suits your work, there is no strong reason to move.
IndexPro's case is speed and unit cost: a faster tier for links that cannot wait a fortnight, a standard tier that costs meaningfully less per link at volume, and the option to choose between them per batch. If the wait is what sent you looking for an alternative, that is the difference that matters. If it was not, the two are more alike than either would probably admit.