The Privacy Showdown: Brave vs. Floorp vs. Waterfox – Who Wins?

Product being reviewed

A comparison of three web browsers for out-of-the-box privacy: Brave vs. Floorp vs. Waterfox (the video also mentions earlier-tested browsers in passing, but the main focus is these three).

Testing approach (how the comparison was done)

• No tweaks / no preconfiguration / no hardening—tests were run using “raw out of the box” privacy settings.
• Evaluated:
  1. Fingerprint resistance
  2. Tracker blocking
  3. Default search privacy
  4. DNS and WebRTC leak protection
• Tools mentioned:
  • ECS Cover Your Tracks (fingerprints)
  • BrowserLeaks content filter tool (tracker blocking)
  • DNS + WebRTC leak tests with a VPN running

Key findings (unique points) about each browser

1) Fingerprint resistance (ECS Cover Your Tracks)

• Floorp: produced a unique fingerprint → vulnerable to tracking/identification across sessions.
• Waterfox: also produced a unique fingerprint → similarly vulnerable.
• Brave: randomized fingerprint each time → significantly harder to track.

Verdict (within this test): Brave leads (unexpected result for the reviewer).

Nuance: Many privacy-focused browsers may not disrupt fingerprinting without configuration—Brave did (per the test).

Overall point: Brave was the only one that actively randomized fingerprints out of the box.

---

2) Tracker blocking (BrowserLeaks content filter tool)

Floorp

• Proxy headers not detected → browser did not modify/strip proxy headers.
• “Letter boxing” not detected → screen size could still be used for fingerprinting.
• Canvas protection not detected → no built-in defense against canvas fingerprinting.
• Ad/tracker blocking not detected by default → needs manual setup (e.g., extensions like uBlock Origin).

Reviewer conclusion: Floorp may be privacy-branded, but out of the box it doesn’t actively block trackers/fingerprinting.

Waterfox

• “Identical result” to Floorp:
  • Out of the box: no active tracker blocking and no fingerprint protection (as measured).

Brave

• Canvas protection detected → blocks/modifies canvas fingerprinting attempts.
• Letter boxing not detected → screen size could still be a fingerprinting vector.
• Ad & tracker blocking detected → aggressive filtering with multiple filter lists:
  • Mentions Brave/Friends-first party and Brave Social
  • EasyList / EasyPrivacy
  • Peter Lowe’s ad & tracking list
  • uBlock filters (additional security)

Reviewer conclusion: Brave is ahead due to built-in tracker blocking + canvas protection, even though letter boxing wasn’t implemented.

Overall point: Brave had the strongest default anti-tracking protections in this test set.

---

3) Default search privacy

• Main concern: some browsers route searches through “data-hungry” search partners that log queries and may link to identity.
• Reviewer test searched for “afam media”.

Floorp

• Default search routed through Google.

Waterfox

• Default search routed through Microsoft (Bing/Microsoft Search indicated).

Brave

• Default routed to Brave Search.
• Reviewer claims Brave Search does not track users, collect personal data, or profile queries, positioning it as more privacy-focused than Google/Microsoft in this comparison.

Overall point: Brave leads specifically on default search routing; the other two default to major providers.

---

4) DNS and WebRTC leak protection (VPN running)

The reviewer ran tests with a VPN active to check whether browsers leak real IP via:

• DNS leaks (browser bypasses VPN and queries directly to ISP)
• WebRTC leaks (real IP exposed via real-time communication features)

Floorp

• No WebRTC leaks detected (stated as a “strong start”).

Waterfox and Brave

• “Identical results”: no WebRTC leaks detected.
• Reviewer concludes all three respect VPN tunneling and don’t reveal real IP through this common vulnerability.

Overall point: For DNS/WebRTC leak protection, none of the browsers meaningfully separated the field—they all passed in this test.

Comparisons and overall verdict

• Fingerprinting: Brave wins (randomized fingerprint). Floorp and Waterfox fail (unique fingerprint).
• Tracker blocking / fingerprint defenses: Brave wins (aggressive blocking + canvas protection). Floorp and Waterfox fail out-of-the-box.
• Default search privacy: Brave wins (Brave Search vs. Google/Microsoft).
• DNS/WebRTC leaks: Tie (all pass).

Overall recommendation (concise verdict)

Brave is presented as the best out-of-the-box privacy choice among the three, largely because it:

• randomizes fingerprints
• has strong built-in tracker/ads blocking
• provides canvas protection
• uses a more privacy-oriented default search engine

Pros / Cons mentioned (as expressed in the video)

Brave — Pros

• Randomized fingerprinting (harder to track)
• Built-in aggressive tracker blocking (no config needed)
• Canvas fingerprinting protection detected
• More privacy-friendly default search (Brave Search)
• No WebRTC leak detected

Brave — Cons

• Letter boxing not detected (screen size could still be used for fingerprinting)

Floorp — Pros (implied/limited)

• DNS/WebRTC leak performance described as passing (no WebRTC leaks detected)

Floorp — Cons (main thrust)

• Unique fingerprint → easy cross-session identification
• Out-of-the-box no meaningful tracker blocking
• No canvas protection detected
• Proxy header/screen-size vectors not mitigated (per tests)

Waterfox — Pros (implied/limited)

• DNS/WebRTC leak performance described as passing (no WebRTC leaks detected)

Waterfox — Cons (main thrust)

• Unique fingerprint → easy cross-session identification
• Out-of-the-box no meaningful tracker blocking
• No canvas protection detected
• Proxy header/screen-size vectors not mitigated (per tests)

Speakers / perspectives

• Single main speaker (the reviewer/host) provides all tests, tool results, and conclusions.
• No separate distinct speakers are identified in the subtitles; one additional “voice” appears only as the narrator’s reference to prior testing and general claims (not a different person).