When privacy is the product, “no-logs” is the baseline—but not a guarantee. SafePaper’s 2025 review cuts through marketing claims to test 10 major VPNs, free and paid, against five verifiable pillars: jurisdiction, audits, technical design, transparency, and policy clarity.
The goal is to reveal which providers truly protect user anonymity, and which simply promise to.
Ready to dive into the data? For a full, evidence-based breakdown of logging practices and compliance across all 10 providers, explore the original research: Decipher 10 No-Logs VPNs Policies & Practices (Free & Paid).
Five pillars of a trustworthy no-logs policy
According to SafePaper’s 2025 review, no single feature defines credibility. Instead, it rests on five distinct pillars: jurisdiction, independent audits, technical infrastructure, transparency reports, and policy clarity.
1. Jurisdiction: The ultimate legal firewall
Of all the pillars, jurisdiction has the highest veto power. Even with airtight infrastructure, a VPN headquartered in a country with mandatory data retention laws can be legally compelled to log and hand over user data—often under gag orders that prohibit disclosure. This risk is particularly high in Five/Nine/Fourteen Eyes intelligence-sharing alliances, which include the US, UK, Canada, Australia, and much of the EU.
2. RAM-only servers & private DNS: Technical barriers to logging
Legal protections set the boundary; infrastructure enforces it. RAM-only servers are designed to wipe all data on every reboot, leaving no persistent storage that could be accessed—even under legal pressure. This alone reduces the risk of unintended data retention.
Complementing this is private DNS routing, which prevents DNS queries from leaking to third-party servers, where browsing behavior might otherwise be logged. Some providers also implement Zero Trust Network Access (ZTNA) to further restrict internal access to sensitive systems.
3. Independent audits: Validating the no-logs claim
A privacy policy is a promise. An audit is a test. Independent third-party audits—conducted by firms like Cure53, Deloitte, or KPMG—can examine backend systems, server configurations, and internal controls to confirm that a provider’s operations match its public no-logs statements.
However, audits are time-bound snapshots. A single audit shows compliance during that period only. Providers with recurring audits across multiple years demonstrate a longer-term commitment to verifiable privacy.
4. Transparency reports: A track record of zero disclosure
A regularly updated transparency report shows how often a provider receives legal requests for user data—and whether it complies. While some providers skip this step, the most credible ones publish detailed stats and emphasize zero user-identifying data disclosed.
5. Privacy policy: What’s logged—and what’s explicitly not
A detailed, well-structured privacy policy is the final pillar. The most trustworthy providers spell out exactly what limited data they do collect (e.g., aggregate bandwidth or crash reports) and, more critically, what they never log: IP addresses, browsing activity, DNS queries, timestamps, or session metadata.
Overly vague or overly absolute policies (“we collect nothing ever”) often hide the operational reality. In contrast, granular disclosures, even of minimal technical data, are usually a sign of transparent intent.
Case study: Vetting 10 VPN providers against the 5 pillars
Understanding these five pillars allows us to bypass marketing noise and apply an evidence-driven standard to the VPN market. SafePaper applied this exact framework to ten prominent VPN services—five premium-only and five that offer a free tier—to determine their true level of compliance and risk.
Here is an abbreviated analysis demonstrating how these providers stack up against the critical evidence points of jurisdiction, technical integrity, and audit history.
Premium VPNs: The high-cost compliance check
When users pay for a VPN, they expect a guarantee of security. However, as the analysis shows, the core differentiator among premium services often boils down to a single, unchangeable factor: Jurisdiction.
| Provider | Jurisdiction Vetting | RAM-Only Servers | Last No-Logs Audit | Key Observation |
| Mullvad VPN | Sweden (14 Eyes) | Yes | 2024 (Cure53) | Location is concerning, but the 2023 police raid resistance proved system efficacy. |
| NordVPN | Panama (Safe) | Yes | 2024 (Deloitte) | Strong legal haven; has continuous, recent audit history. |
| ExpressVPN | British Virgin Islands (Safe) | Yes | 2024 (KPMG LLP) | Pioneer in RAM-Only tech; strong safe haven jurisdiction. |
| Norton VPN | USA (5 Eyes) / Czechia | No | 2025 (VerSprite) | US headquarters is a critical legal risk; lacks RAM-Only implementation. |
| IPVanish VPN | USA (5 Eyes) | Partial (Migrating) | 2025 (Schellman) | USA location is a major risk, evidenced by a 2016 log disclosure incident. |
SafePaper Insight on Premium Services: Paying a subscription fee does not eliminate risk. For providers like Norton and IPVanish, their headquarters in Five Eyes nations (USA) introduces an inherent legal vulnerability. While technology like RAM-Only servers is a strong mitigating factor (as seen with Mullvad’s real-world test), selecting a provider, like ExpressVPN or NordVPN, located in a jurisdiction that physically cannot be compelled to log data (Panama, BVI) remains the safest foundational choice.
Free VPNs: Finding reliable options in a high-risk category
The conventional wisdom is that free VPNs are inherently dangerous because you are the product. While many free services sustain themselves by logging and selling user metadata, SafePaper’s review found that a few options, particularly those backed by privacy-focused organizations, still offer verifiable no-logs compliance.
| Provider | Jurisdiction Vetting | RAM-Only Servers | Last No-Logs Audit | Key Observation |
| Proton VPN | Switzerland (Safe) | No (Encrypted Disks) | 2025 (Securitum) | Strong jurisdiction and open-sourced code; uses fully encrypted disks as an alternative to RAM. |
| X-VPN | Singapore (Safe) | Yes | Ongoing First Audit | Full RAM-Only deployment; based in Singapore (outside “Eyes” alliances); publishes a history of transparency reports dating since 2017. |
| Hide.me VPN | Malaysia (Safe) | Yes | 2024 (Securitum) | Strong safe haven jurisdiction; long history of transparency reports dating back to 2013. |
| TunnelBear | Canada (5 Eyes) | No | Focus on App Security | Canadian headquarters (5 Eyes) and US ownership (McAfee) are major jurisdiction risks; no recent public no-logs audit. |
| Windscribe | Canada (5 Eyes) | Yes | 2024 (Packetlabs) | Excellent technical commitment (RAM-Only), but the Canadian jurisdiction is a liability. |
SafePaper Insight on Free Services: The risk disparity here is stark. Free VPNs based in high-exposure jurisdictions (TennelBear, Windscribe in Canada) carry high legal risk even with good technical measures. The lowest exposure is found in providers backed by strong, safe-haven jurisdictions, such as Proton (Switzerland), Hide.me (Malaysia), and X-VPN (Singapore). These cases prove that reliable free privacy is achievable when the service is driven by a core privacy mission and operates where its technical integrity is bolstered by strong legal protections.
What it means
Not all no-logs claims hold up. SafePaper’s 2025 review shows that real privacy depends on jurisdiction, verified audits, and infrastructure like RAM-only servers. Whether free or paid, choose VPNs backed by strong legal protections—not just strong marketing.
For users, this means you should evaluate providers on three core criteria:
- Where they’re based (jurisdiction),
- What they’ve implemented (RAM-only servers),
- What’s been verified (third-party audits, transparency reports).
The safest bets are providers whose legal environment aligns with their technology, not those trying to compensate for one with the other. In 2025, privacy demands proof—not promises.
