How do DuckDuckGo, Brave, and Startpage compare in real-world fingerprint test scores across different platforms (Windows, macOS, Android, iOS)?

1. What the user really wants: “fingerprint test scores” vs available reporting

The question seeks empirical, cross‑platform fingerprint test scores for three products, but the supplied reporting contains feature claims, comparative reviews, and marketing pages rather than published lab or crowd‑sourced score tables; none of the sources provide numeric, platform‑segmented fingerprinting test results, so the analysis must map product claims and third‑party reporting onto likely real‑world performance rather than quote absent scores ^{[1] [2] [4]}.

2. Brave’s posture: default, broad fingerprint protections across platforms

Brave is described repeatedly as blocking fingerprinting by default and shipping the browser on Windows, macOS, Android and iOS, and reviewers and Brave’s own pages position it as the stronger technical defender against fingerprinting among these options ^{[1] [5] [6]}. Brave’s feature set — built‑in ad and tracker blocking, Fingerprinting protection, and options like integrated Tor and VPN-like offerings on some platforms — suggests it will perform better on generic fingerprint tests on all platforms, according to vendors and reviewers ^{[1] [5] [4]}.

3. DuckDuckGo’s posture: limited protections, mobile‑first simplicity

DuckDuckGo’s browser is available on the same platform list (Windows, macOS, Android, iOS) but is repeatedly described as offering “some” fingerprinting protections and selectively blocking trackers while allowing certain Microsoft trackers — a design and partnership tradeoff reviewers highlight — which implies it may score worse than Brave on intensive fingerprint‑resistance tests in real‑world comparisons if measured ^{[2] [7] [4]}. Review commentary emphasizes DuckDuckGo’s simplicity and mobile focus rather than aggressive, cross‑platform anti‑fingerprinting hardening ^{[4] [2]}.

4. Startpage: search engine, not a browser — apples vs oranges

Startpage appears throughout the sources as a private search provider rather than a standalone browser implementation for all platforms, and comparisons against Brave are usually framed at the search level; consequently Startpage cannot be cleanly assigned browser fingerprint test scores unless run through a browser wrapper or extension, a distinction reviewers and comparison sites make clear ^{[3] [8]}. Any real‑world fingerprinting measurement would therefore depend on which browser and extension model is being used with Startpage, a variable the provided reporting does not quantify ^[3].

5. Caveats, controversies, and conflicting signals

Independent and community reviews recommend Brave more often for privacy features, but also record past controversies (e.g., Brave’s business decisions and redirects) and note tradeoffs in user experience and trust — factors that complicate declarations about “best” protection in practice ^{[7] [6]}. Likewise, DuckDuckGo’s cooperation with Microsoft is repeatedly flagged as an implicit agenda that may affect tracking exposure for some scenarios ^{[7] [2]}. The supplied material therefore supports a qualitative ranking (Brave > DuckDuckGo; Startpage ≠ browser) but not numeric, platform‑by‑platform fingerprint test scores because such scores are not present in the sources ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

6. Bottom line and what would close the gap

Based on the available reporting, Brave is presented as the most aggressively engineered against fingerprinting on Windows, macOS, Android and iOS; DuckDuckGo provides a lighter, simpler set of protections that may be weaker on intensive fingerprint tests and makes platform tradeoffs tied to partner integrations; Startpage should be treated as a search engine, not a browser, so any fingerprint measurement depends on the host browser ^{[1] [2] [3]}. To answer the original question with the empirical precision requested would require actual, platform‑segmented test runs (e.g., AmIUnique, Panopticlick or similar testbeds) or a published third‑party study — neither of which appears in the supplied reporting ^{[1] [2] [3]}.