Can You Trust Your VPN? We Tested 15+ To Find Out

Overview

The video explains that most VPN users never read the “fine print.” To address this, the channel developed a detailed, repeatable rubric to evaluate how trustworthy VPNs really are—based on privacy policy language, company practices, and supporting evidence, rather than marketing claims.

Key findings and arguments

1) Data collection/sharing is the core trust issue

VPNs that openly admit they collect or share personal data are treated as higher risk.

• Hotspot Shield and MegaVPN are cited as worst offenders so far.
  • Hotspot Shield’s terms are described as contradicting its “no logs” implication. Examples include:
    • Collecting data such as IP addresses
    • Using data to personalize ads
    • Sharing data with unspecified third parties under unclear terms
  • Even when the provider claims it doesn’t retain browsing records, the policy allegedly reserves broader rights to use/share other user data.
• iVPN and Mulvad are highlighted as stricter examples.
  • Their policies state they don’t keep or share data.
  • They may also not require users’ name or email.
  • Mulvad is praised for transparency about:
    • What data is stored
    • How long it is stored

2) Vague or overly complex policies are a red flag

The video criticizes unclear legal jargon and conditional language for making it hard to determine whether a “no logs” promise is real.

• ProtonVPN—though described as “well regarded”—is said to have unusually unclear or jargon-heavy terms that raise questions about its no-log position.

3) Legal/regulatory frameworks can be safeguards

The video notes that laws such as:

• GDPR (Europe)
• U.S. state laws (e.g., California and Virginia)

…push for clearer disclosures and provide user rights such as deletion and opt-outs from sale/sharing.

4) Third-party audits help, but aren’t definitive

Publishing security/policy audits is framed as a “good faith” signal, but the video emphasizes that audits don’t prove everything.

• Audits score lower if they are not detailed enough or if auditors were not given enough time/access.
• Referencing Cure53 as an auditor, the video suggests that a lack of published audits may indicate providers don’t want concerning findings public.
• Example of a provider stance:
  • IVPN is described as opposing policy audits on the grounds that a no-log audit is only a snapshot in time, and practices could change afterward.

5) “Proof” via legal/security events matters

The investigation includes checking for real-world indicators such as:

• Data leaks
• Court orders
• Police raids

If a provider is raided or breached and cannot produce user data, that is described as the strongest evidence against logging.

6) Marketing/communications are assessed—with caution

Marketing is harder to measure objectively, but the channel still scores it, particularly when it crosses ethical lines.

Examples of concerns:

• Tessonet: flagged for potential conflict of interest because it owns VPN brands (including Nord and Surfshark) and also runs or promotes sites that review and push those products.
• Hotspot Shield: cited again for fear-based advertising and misleading presentation (e.g., fear-mongering about hackers and using review snippets without context).
• Cape Technologies (owner of ExpressVPN and CyberGhost): criticized for not publicly acknowledging/responding to scrutiny about involvement in prior malware development.
• Bitdefender: criticized for transparency issues—its VPN is described as white-labeled from Hotspot Shield, and the connection allegedly isn’t made clear enough to users.

Methodology updates

• The video announces new scored boxes in verdicts, including explicit scoring for:
  • Privacy policy quality
  • Company policies/practices
• Future VPN reviews will include:
  • The rubric
  • A scoring breakdown
  • Investigation notes The goal is to help viewers assess trust “at a glance.”

Presenters or contributors

• Alex (from ratings.com) — host/presenter