Has DuckDuckGo undergone independent privacy audits or third‑party verifications of its no‑logs claims?

1. What DuckDuckGo itself says and what reviewers confirm

DuckDuckGo’s public-facing privacy policy states the company does not connect searches to unique identifiers like IP addresses and describes technical measures to anonymize location and queries ^[1]; independent reviews and product tests generally praise its design and practical privacy protections, with some testers reporting no identifying information passed during transactions and calling it “very safe” ^[3]. Several testing sites and reviewers have also cited discrete audits or confirmations of specific features—for example, a claim that DuckDuckGo was audited by Securitum in October 2024 appears in industry testing coverage ^[2].

2. Where the reporting diverges: “no formal audit” vs named audits

At the same time, privacy‑focused writeups and critiques say the company “doesn’t seem to have undergone a formal audit” or that it “never went through a formal privacy audit,” noting gaps around full independent verification of its no‑logging across search, extensions, mobile apps, and bundled VPN/browser products ^{[4] [5]}. This apparent contradiction in the record suggests some audits or technical reviews have occurred but that they may have been limited in scope, focused on particular components, or not publicly comprehensive enough to satisfy privacy experts ^{[2] [5]}.

3. Known third‑party checks and audits: selective, sometimes product‑specific

Public reporting documents at least two types of third‑party scrutiny: targeted security research and narrower audits that identified specific behaviors—such as an independent researcher (Zach Edwards) uncovering a Microsoft‑related tracking exception that prompted changes—and site reviews referencing audits of specific functionality ^{[6] [2]}. Independent security researchers have also periodically found vulnerabilities in DuckDuckGo products that the company has addressed, which is consistent with routine third‑party testing rather than a single authoritative, company‑wide privacy attestation ^[7].

4. Why privacy experts remain cautious

Privacy analysts’ reservations stem from the difference between limited audits and a comprehensive, verifiable attestation of “no logs” across all services and suppliers: DuckDuckGo relies on third‑party search providers for results and historically had a carve‑out for Microsoft scripts that critics argued weakened blanket no‑logs claims until the company adjusted blocking behavior ^{[6] [4]}. This nuance—operational exceptions, reliance on external suppliers, and the scope of any disclosed audits—fuels expert calls for a broader, formal audit that would explicitly validate logging practices end‑to‑end ^{[5] [4]}.

5. How to read the evidence and remaining gaps

The available reporting shows DuckDuckGo makes strong privacy claims and has been the subject of multiple third‑party tests, audits of specific features, and independent security research that both confirmed protections and found issues later fixed ^{[1] [2] [7]}. What is not clearly documented in the sources provided is a single, widely publicized, full‑scope independent audit explicitly certifying that DuckDuckGo logs nothing across all services in all configurations; several sources say such a comprehensive audit is absent or unpublished ^{[4] [5]}. Absent disclosure of a definitive, company‑wide third‑party verification, the reasonable conclusion from the cited reporting is that DuckDuckGo has undergone some third‑party testing and limited audits but not—or at least not publicly—a comprehensive independent attestation that settles its no‑logs claims for every product and integration ^{[2] [4] [5]}.