NordVPN has maintained continuous independent audit coverage since 2018. PureVPN provided user connection logs to the FBI in 2017 while marketing a no-logs policy — the company has since introduced audits and a revised architecture. Both have current audit coverage; the difference is what the audit trail looks like before 2017.

What you get that PureVPN doesn't offer

Audit continuity since 2018 with no documented gap between policy and practice. Panama jurisdiction vs PureVPN's BVI registration under GZ Systems, a Hong Kong-based parent. Security architecture is more developed: Threat Protection as an integrated layer, specialty server categories across obfuscated, double-hop, and P2P. NordVPN is optimized for streaming access and speed-sensitive workloads. Interface is designed for general mainstream use without technical configuration.

What you give up

PureVPN includes port forwarding — a practical feature for P2P and self-hosted services that NordVPN removed from its product. Long-term value position is more accommodating at PureVPN. Device support and connection limits are broader. PureVPN's current no-logs posture carries independent audit coverage.

What you get that NordVPN doesn't offer

Port forwarding included — useful for torrent clients, self-hosted services, and applications that require inbound connections. More accommodating long-term value position. Broader device support and wider simultaneous connection limit. BVI jurisdiction. Current independent audit coverage of the no-logs policy.

What you give up

The 2017 logging incident is a documented fact: PureVPN handed user connection records to law enforcement while claiming a no-logs policy. The subsequent audit program addresses current practices — it doesn't change what happened. GZ Systems is a Hong Kong-based parent, which introduces a different corporate jurisdiction risk than Nord Security. NordVPN's audit trail is unbroken; PureVPN's begins after the incident.