Surfshark operates under Nord Security from the Netherlands; PIA operates under Kape Technologies from the United States. Both serve the value-conscious mainstream market — the split is unlimited device coverage against a fully open-source technical stack.

What you get that PIA doesn't offer

Unlimited simultaneous connections — PIA's limit is generous but still bounded. Surfshark optimizes for streaming access; PIA doesn't position around it as a product commitment. Security architecture is more developed in coverage and infrastructure investment. Nord Security ownership without the US jurisdictional exposure. CleanWeb ad and tracker blocking. Interface is designed for a general audience.

What you give up

PIA publishes client code across all platforms — Windows, macOS, iOS, Android — making the codebase available for independent review. Surfshark's clients are not published in that way. PIA's MACE operates at the DNS infrastructure layer. PIA offers more granular protocol and encryption configuration than Surfshark exposes in its interface. Netherlands is an EU jurisdiction; PIA's BVI registration provides different legal framing.

What you get that Surfshark doesn't offer

Fully open-source clients across all platforms. MACE DNS-layer blocking. Highly configurable: encryption cipher, protocol, port, and MTU settings are user-accessible. BVI registration outside EU data-retention frameworks — different from Surfshark's Netherlands position. Long operational history as a transparency-focused provider.

What you give up

US jurisdiction — 5-eyes member; federal agency reach is a structural fact regardless of PIA's no-logs architecture. Kape Technologies owns PIA alongside ExpressVPN and CyberGhost; Surfshark's Nord Security parent is a different ownership group without the same concentration across multiple providers. Streaming reliability and speed consistency gaps. Surfshark's unlimited connection model.