The electrophoretic mobility of a spherical colloidal particle with low zeta potential near a solid charged boundary is calculated numerically for arbitrary values of the double layer thickness by a generalization of Teubner's method to the case of bounded flow. Three examples are considered: a sphere near a nonconducting planar wall with electric field parallel to the wall, near a perfectly conducting planar wall with electric field perpendicular to the wall, and on the axis of a cylindrical pore with electric field parallel to the axis. The results are compared with recent analytical calculations using the method of reflections. For the case of a charged sphere near a neutral surface, the reflection results are quite good, provided there is no double layer overlap, in which case there can be extra effects for constant potential particles that are entirely missed by the analytical expressions. For a neutral sphere near a charged surface, the reflection results are less successful. The main reason is that the particle feels the profile of the electroosmotic flow, an effect ignored by construction in the method of reflections. The general case is a combination of these, so that the reflections are more reliable when the electrophoretic motion dominates the electroosmotic flow. The effect on particle mobility of particle-wall interactions follows the trend expected on geometric grounds in that sphere-plane interactions are stronger than sphere-sphere interactions and the effect on a sphere in a cylindrical pore is stronger still. In the latter case, particle mobility can fall by more than 50% for thick double layers and a sphere half the diameter of the pore. The agreement between numerical results and analytical results follows the same trend, being worst for the sphere in a pore. Nevertheless, the reflections can be reliable for some geometries if there is no double layer overlap. This is demonstrated for a specific example where reflection results have previously been compared with experiments on protein mobility through a membrane (J. Ennis et at, 1996, J. Membrane Sci. 119, 47).