PIA is owned by Kape Technologies and operates from the US with a published client codebase. PureVPN provided user logs to the FBI in 2017 while claiming a no-logs policy and has since introduced independent audit coverage. Both carry documented history; the product comparison runs alongside it.

What you get that PureVPN doesn't offer

Client code published across all platforms for independent review — PureVPN's clients are not open-source. MACE DNS-layer blocking. Highly configurable: encryption cipher, protocol, port, and MTU all user-adjustable. PIA optimizes for streaming access; PureVPN's streaming posture is less actively maintained. Kape's ownership applies here, but PIA's code-level transparency is a distinct verification layer.

What you give up

PureVPN provides port forwarding; PIA does not. PureVPN's long-term value position is more accommodating. PureVPN's current audit covers its no-logs practices going forward. GZ Systems is a different ownership structure than Kape — different conglomerate risk profile.

What you get that PIA doesn't offer

Port forwarding included. More accommodating long-term value position. BVI jurisdiction vs PIA's US parent jurisdiction. Current independent audit coverage of the no-logs policy. Broader simultaneous connection limit.

What you give up

The 2017 logging incident is a documented fact: PureVPN handed user records to law enforcement while stating a no-logs policy. The current audit addresses practices going forward. PIA publishes its client code for independent review; PureVPN does not. MACE blocking and configurable protocol options are not available. US jurisdiction applies to PIA's Kape parent — but PIA's codebase transparency exists despite that.