How does DuckDuckGo’s built‑in VPN compare in independent audits and leak tests to market leaders?

1. Audit coverage and what was actually tested

The clearest positive signal is that DuckDuckGo contracted a third‑party security firm (Securitum) to audit its VPN infrastructure, backend API and apps; reports say the audit uncovered and led to fixes for several medium/high issues and found no evidence of logging in the reviewed components ^{[1] [2]}. DuckDuckGo’s help pages document specific past traffic‑leak vulnerabilities (macOS tunnel routing, Windows behavior) and claim those have been fixed in recent app versions, showing the company has been remediating concrete findings rather than ignoring them ^[5]. That said, earlier independent coverage and contemporaneous reviews noted a time when the VPN lacked any public independent audits at all, reflecting the product’s recent maturation and differing audit timelines across outlets ^[3].

2. Leak tests and real‑world connectivity behavior

Hands‑on reviewers report that DuckDuckGo’s VPN passed standard DNS leak tests and that kill‑switch behavior worked in their tests, and reviewers found it capable of unblocking streaming libraries in multiple countries—evidence the tunnel and basic leak protections function in practice ^{[1] [2]}. DuckDuckGo itself publicly acknowledged and patched routing bugs that could have caused macOS traffic to escape the tunnel under malicious router conditions, a practical class of leak that independent testing would target ^[5]. These signals are consistent: independent reviewers saw no DNS leaks in their sessions while DuckDuckGo disclosed and fixed prior leakage vectors ^{[1] [5] [2]}.

3. How it compares feature‑wise to market leaders

Compared with market leaders like ExpressVPN, Surfshark or others that emphasize RAM‑only servers, frequent public audits, and broad feature sets, DuckDuckGo’s VPN is intentionally minimal: built for browser‑level convenience, supports split tunneling on some platforms, and maintains a modest server footprint (30+ countries reported) suitable for streaming and everyday privacy but not for advanced use cases ^{[2] [6]}. Market leaders often advertise audited no‑logs policies, RAM‑only diskless architectures, multi‑jurisdiction transparency reports, and more extensive, repeated independent audits—areas where DuckDuckGo’s offering is narrower or newer ^{[6] [4]}.

4. Trust, transparency and historical controversies

Trust in DuckDuckGo is boosted by its audit engagement and public fixes, yet legacy issues temper confidence: the company faced criticism over a past Microsoft tracker exception and earlier periods where some security observers said audits were lacking or undisclosed, creating a perception gap that competitors have worked longer to close ^{[7] [3] [4]}. Some outlets emphasize that audits and leak tests are trust signals but not absolute guarantees—audits vary in scope and frequency, and hands‑on leak tests cover only the configurations and time windows tested ^{[2] [1]}.

5. Who should use DuckDuckGo’s VPN and who should not

For users seeking simple, integrated browser privacy with network encryption that passes standard leak tests and basic audits, DuckDuckGo’s VPN is an attractive, user‑friendly option and works well for streaming and day‑to‑day anonymous browsing ^{[1] [2]}. Users with high‑risk threat models—journalists, activists, or anyone requiring repeated, deep independent verification, RAM‑only server assurances, or advanced features—should prefer established market leaders that publish recurring audits, stronger infrastructure guarantees, and wider technical hardening ^{[6] [4] [3]}.

6. Bottom line

Independent leak tests and vendor‑commissioned audits show DuckDuckGo’s VPN is competent for general privacy needs: reviewers report no DNS leaks and the company fixed earlier routing flaws exposed by audits ^{[1] [5] [2]}. But compared with market leaders, it remains a lean, newer entrant with a shorter public audit record and fewer advanced infrastructure guarantees—adequate for most users, insufficient for those who require the strongest, repeatedly validated protections ^{[3] [6]}.