Are there independent audits or privacy certifications validating DuckDuckGo, Startpage, or Brave claims?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Independent, formal audits and recurring privacy certifications exist unevenly across DuckDuckGo, Startpage and Brave. Startpage has historical third‑party certification from EuroPriSe but stopped recertification after 2017 [1]. Brave has published multiple independent checks — including an audited VPN in 2024 and a SOC 2 Type II attestation for part of its search infrastructure in 2025 — and an ongoing culture of security reviews and open-source scrutiny [2] [3] [4]. Available sources do not mention a formal, recent privacy audit for DuckDuckGo comparable to Startpage’s EuroPriSe or Brave’s SOC2/VPN audits [5] [6] [7].
1. Startpage: once EuroPriSe‑certified, now reliant on reputation and EU jurisdiction
Startpage earned trust historically through an independent European privacy seal (EuroPriSe) that evaluated its data handling, but it stopped pursuing recertification after 2017; the company points to GDPR complexity and costs while critics note the certification gap worsened after its 2019 acquisition by a U.S. ad‑tech firm [1]. Startpage’s public-facing defense is its Netherlands jurisdiction and GDPR‑based privacy policy [8], plus product features like “Anonymous View” and a Privacy Protection extension; still, many recent articles and reviews flag the lack of fresh third‑party attestation as a legitimate concern for privacy‑minded users [1] [9] [10].
2. Brave: systematic independent checks, open‑source signals and targeted attestations
Brave has pursued external verification for specific products and services: its VPN underwent an independent audit announced in 2024 (verifying a no‑logs posture), and in October 2025 Brave announced a SOC 2 Type II attestation for its Search API performed by Prescient Security [2] [3]. Brave couples these formal audits with an open‑source codebase, GitHub security review processes and public writeups about privacy systems (STAR, P3A), which together create multiple avenues for independent scrutiny even when full‑product audits are not published [4] [11] [12]. Brave also makes some audit artifacts available under NDA or by request, which strengthens enterprise trust but limits public verification [3].
3. DuckDuckGo: gaps in formal, public audits and recurring scrutiny over exceptions
Multiple sources and privacy commentators report that DuckDuckGo has not published a comprehensive, formal privacy audit akin to EuroPriSe or SOC 2, and that regulators’ complaint investigations only checked for false‑advertising rather than full technical audits [5] [6]. Reporting and audits in 2023–2024 flagged specific issues — such as legacy exposures to fingerprinting or Microsoft‑related exceptions — which DuckDuckGo addressed, but those episodes reinforced critics’ point that independent, ongoing attestation was limited or absent in the public record [7] [5]. DuckDuckGo’s leadership points to open code and selective audits (e.g., VPN audits mentioned by the company) but available sources do not describe a recent, company‑wide privacy certification [13].
4. What these differences mean for users: trust models and verification tradeoffs
Startpage’s trust model historically leaned on an external privacy seal and EU legal protections; losing active certification creates a verification gap even if the company says it follows GDPR [1] [8]. Brave’s approach combines product‑level independent audits, transparency through open source, and recurring internal security review processes; that produces piecemeal but substantive attestations [3] [4] [2]. DuckDuckGo emphasizes product design, selective audits (e.g., for its VPN) and public statements, but independent sources cite no broad, recent privacy certification to validate every privacy claim [13] [5] [6].
5. How to evaluate claims yourself and push for stronger verification
Demand specifics: which product, which scope (search, browser, VPN), what standard (SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, EuroPriSe) and when the audit was done — those details change how meaningful an attestation is [3] [1]. Prefer vendors that publish full reports or allow attestations to be inspected (Brave posts audit announcements and offers reports on request under NDA; Startpage’s past EuroPriSe certification is documented but recertification is absent; DuckDuckGo’s public record shows targeted audits rather than a single comprehensive recent audit) [3] [1] [5]. Recognize tradeoffs: open‑source code and ongoing security reviews (Brave) provide continuous external inspection pathways, while legal jurisdiction and historical seals (Startpage) provide regulatory protection that can matter in enforcement scenarios [4] [1] [14].
6. Bottom line — verification is uneven; read the fine print
Brave has the strongest, documented track record in available reporting for independent attestations of specific services (VPN audit in 2024; SOC 2 for Search API in 2025) plus an open‑source security culture [2] [3] [4]. Startpage has credible historical certification (EuroPriSe) and leans on EU law, but it stopped recertifying after 2017, leaving users to rely on policy and jurisdiction rather than fresh audits [1] [8]. DuckDuckGo has had targeted investigations and fixes but, in current reporting, lacks a single, recent, formal privacy audit that validates all its claims [5] [6]. Available sources do not mention other comprehensive audits beyond those cited above.