IVPN
The anti-affiliate champion candidate holds up: no affiliate program (stated out loud on the homepage), flat honest pricing, quarterly warrant canary, annual…
Ranked on documented facts, not sponsored placement - every provider page shows the evidence.
Short answer: Eight providers in our ranking sit outside the 5/9/14 Eyes alliances - but jurisdiction is one input, not a verdict. Sweden-based Mullvad is 14-Eyes and still court-proven; a Panama letterhead with no evidence buys you nothing.
providers on this page: 13 · independent audit on file: 62% · court-proven no-logs: 0 · open-source apps: 31%
quick picks
The anti-affiliate champion candidate holds up: no affiliate program (stated out loud on the homepage), flat honest pricing, quarterly warrant canary, annual…
cryptostorm.is is verifiably LIVE (fetched today, HTTP 200) with a PGP-signed warrant canary dated July 1, 2026 and an unbroken Wayback snapshot record…
The most honest mainstream deal in 2026: open-source apps, real audits, a genuinely usable free tier with no data cap, and a transparent renewal model - and in…
A rare genuinely usable free plan (no card, P2P allowed on the 10 GB free tier) plus audited no-logs claims twice over - DefenseCode 2015 and Securitum 2024…
The only consumer VPN with a real metadata-protection architecture - a 5-hop noise-generating Sphinx mixnet with cover traffic - and it costs just $4/mo on the…
Effectively a discontinued brand absorbed by its own competitor: 'Ivacy Powered by PureVPN' no longer sells new Ivacy subscriptions and funnels everything into…
A 500M-install free VPN from the Qihoo 360-linked developer cluster (Innovative Connecting / Autumn Breeze / Lemon Clove, per TTP 2025 and OTF 2025)…
The most expensive VPN in the room wearing the most auditing laurels: $8.33/mo forever after a $2.99 teaser, owned by Kape Technologies (ex-Crossrider adware…
The rare VPN where no investigation is needed - the privacy policy is the evidence. Urban VPN's parent self-declares as a data broker and sells behavior…
Cheap ($2.19/mo intro on 26 months, renews at $56.94/yr = ~2.2x), Romanian-based, and one of few Kape brands whose no-logs claim is Deloitte-audited - but the…
A strong everyday VPN with a huge live-verifiable network (7,287 servers in 150 countries counted in the official API on 2026-10-01) and a genuine audit…
The worst documented app in this comparison set: 100M+ installs, ownership in the Qihoo 360-linked shell network (TTP 2025), and a peer-reviewed NDSS 2026…
The cautionary tale of VPN 'no logs' marketing: PureVPN's FBI-log handover in 2017 proved the claim hollow while its policy admitted connection/bandwidth…
The Eyes alliances are intelligence-sharing treaties, not VPN regulations[1]. Their practical relevance to a VPN subscription: a provider seated inside an alliance country receives legal process under that country's courts, and material gathered there can flow to partners without a second proceeding. 100% of the 13 providers in our ranking sit outside all three circles - the filter is about reducing the number of governments with a direct, treaty-based path to the operator.
Marketing pages show server maps; courts read corporate registries. The seats that matter on this page: Switzerland (Proton VPN - GDPR-adjacent, constitutional privacy protections, and a constitutional referendum requirement for handovers), the British Virgin Islands (ExpressVPN - no data-retention statute, but also thin oversight), Gibraltar (IVPN - EU-GDPR framework with a local regulator that publishes)[5], Romania (CyberGhost - no mandatory retention post-2016 court rulings), Panama (NordVPN). Each carries a different flavor of "outside the alliances" - and each provider page records the exact seat.
Three. First, jurisdiction is not evidence: a Panama letterhead does not answer the logging question - the evidence ladder does. Second, treaty alliances are not the only route: law-enforcement cooperation (MLATs, Europol channels) works across all borders, as the takedowns of criminal-use VPNs documented on our incident timeline show. Third, the provider can move: incorporations change hands, and a seat that was outside the alliances last year can be inside a merger next year - the ownership map is the page to re-check before a long subscription.
Start here only if jurisdiction is a hard requirement for your threat model. Then: Proton VPN is the strongest combination of seat, audit and price transparency; IVPN pairs Gibraltar with the industry's best verification hygiene; ExpressVPN has the biggest network outside the treaties with the Kape ownership question attached[6]. And remember the counter-example we refuse to hide: the most court-proven operator in our ranking sits in a 14-Eyes country, because behavior under pressure beat geography[4].
Signals-intelligence alliances built on the 1946 UKUSA Agreement[2]. Five Eyes: US, UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand. Nine Eyes adds Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, France. Fourteen Eyes adds Germany, Spain, Italy, Sweden, Belgium. The treaties commit members to share intelligence - they do not create a unified VPN law, but they shape what legal process can reach a provider.
13 providers match - Proton VPN (Switzerland), ExpressVPN (British Virgin Islands), NordVPN (Panama), CyberGhost (Romania), hide.me (Malaysia), PureVPN (Hong Kong/BVI), IVPN (Gibraltar) and NymVPN - 100% of the full ranking. Sweden-based Mullvad does not qualify: Sweden joined the 14 Eyes in 2014, and we apply that honestly even though Mullvad is our court-proven benchmark.
No - and this is the most common confusion. Legal process follows the operating company, not the data center. A provider incorporated in Panama that rents servers in Frankfurt can be pressured through its corporate seat, its payment processors, and its staff - none of which are in Panama. Judge the company's seat, then the evidence of how it behaves when asked.
Sweden is 14 Eyes, and that is a knock - but Mullvad is also the operator whose 2023 police raid produced nothing, with the warrant documented[4]. Jurisdiction describes what can be requested; architecture and evidence decide what can be handed over. We publish both facts and let you weight them.
No. Some "privacy-friendly" seats are paper shells with weak courts, no data-protection law, and no press that would ever notice a handover. A jurisdiction is a promise about process - it is only as good as the transparency that backs it. GDPR jurisdictions give you a regulator and complaint rights; tax havens give you a flag on a website.
As a filter, not a score. Pick your acceptable jurisdictions, then rank the survivors on evidence class - the no-logs hub and court-proven hub - and on renewal price. A provider that wins on jurisdiction but has zero evidence and a steep renewal jump is not the answer.