Both are owned by Kape Technologies — the ownership question applies equally to both. The comparison is product-level: CyberGhost is positioned around server scale and streaming-optimized server profiles; PIA is positioned around a published codebase and configurable infrastructure.

What you get that PIA doesn't offer

9,000+ servers across 90+ countries — a geographic footprint PIA's infrastructure doesn't match. Dedicated streaming and P2P server profiles labeled by platform and maintained as detection environments change. More accommodating long-term value position. Romania: EU member, outside the 5-eyes alliance. Interface designed for a general audience without the configuration depth PIA exposes.

What you give up

Both share the same Kape parent — so the ownership consideration is identical. Within that: PIA's published codebase provides a verification layer CyberGhost doesn't offer. MACE blocking and granular protocol configuration are not available at CyberGhost. Romania's EU membership introduces data-retention framework exposure that PIA's BVI entity avoids at the service level.

What you get that CyberGhost doesn't offer

Client code published across all platforms for independent review — CyberGhost's clients are not open-source. MACE DNS-layer blocking. Highly configurable: encryption cipher, protocol, port, and MTU all user-accessible. BVI entity registration vs CyberGhost's Romania, an EU member with data-retention framework obligations. Independently audited no-logs policy.

What you give up

CyberGhost's 9,000+ server network and dedicated streaming-optimized profiles are not available at PIA. More accommodating long-term value position at CyberGhost. CyberGhost's interface is designed for general use without requiring technical configuration.