Surfshark vs PureVPN

Surfshark operates under Nord Security from the Netherlands. PureVPN is registered in BVI under GZ Systems, a Hong Kong-based parent, and provided user logs to the FBI in 2017 while claiming a no-logs policy — since followed by independent audit coverage. Both have current audit programs; the audit histories differ.

What you get that PureVPN doesn't offer

Unlimited simultaneous connections — PureVPN's limit is broader than most but still bounded. Periodic third-party audits across multiple firms (Deloitte no-logs, Cure53, SecuRing) without a preceding incident — not a continuous or annual cadence, but a track record with no gaps caused by a prior failure. Nord Security ownership vs GZ Systems, a Hong Kong-based parent. Netherlands registration vs PureVPN's BVI under a different corporate structure. CleanWeb ad and tracker blocking. Security feature scope is more developed. Streaming access maintained as a product commitment.

What you give up

PureVPN provides port forwarding; Surfshark does not. PureVPN's long-term value position is more accommodating. PureVPN's current audit covers its no-logs practices going forward.

What you get that Surfshark doesn't offer

Port forwarding included. More accommodating long-term value position. BVI jurisdiction. Current independent audit coverage of the no-logs policy.

What you give up

The 2017 logging incident: PureVPN provided user connection records to law enforcement while stating a no-logs policy. The current audit addresses practices going forward. GZ Systems is a Hong Kong-based parent — a different corporate jurisdiction consideration than Nord Security. Unlimited connections vs PureVPN's cap. Surfshark's security feature scope, streaming access, and CleanWeb blocking are not replicated. Netherlands carries Nine Eyes membership, but no mandatory data-retention law is currently in force there — and the 2017 incident is a structural fact that predates the current audit program.