How frequently do Mullvad, Proton VPN, and NordVPN publish transparency reports and what time ranges do they cover?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Mullvad does not publish a conventional transparency report and has said it has no plans to do so; reviewers note Mullvad cites lack of verifiable user data as the reason [1] [2]. Proton VPN publishes regular transparency reporting and a warrant canary, with Proton’s transparency page updated as of April 22, 2025 and its transparency/no‑logs materials spanning multiple years (Proton reports show 29 legal requests denied up to June 2025) [3] [4]. NordVPN introduced formal transparency reporting in late 2024 and has since described reporting cadence as monthly or quarterly in coverage; Nord explicitly said it would provide monthly updates in its October 2025 announcement [5] [6] [7].
1. Mullvad: "No transparency report" — a principled omission, not a gap in record-keeping
Mullvad’s position is clear in industry coverage: the company does not publish a traditional transparency report and has repeatedly told journalists it has no plans to start, arguing that because it holds minimal or no user-identifying data there is nothing verifiable to report and a transparency report would be redundant [1] [2]. Independent reviews (PCMag) flag Mullvad’s strong audit record and external security testing but note the absence of a transparency report or warrant canary as an explicit policy choice tied to its anonymous, pay-as-you-go model [1]. Other reporting and Mullvad’s own historical materials emphasize system-level transparency and third‑party audits rather than periodic legal-request tallies [8] [9]. Available sources do not mention a Mullvad transparency report with a defined time range because Mullvad publicly refuses to issue one [1] [2].
2. Proton VPN: regular transparency reporting, multi-year coverage and denials
Proton VPN maintains an explicit transparency-reporting practice and a warrant canary; its transparency page is updated when notable legal requests occur and was last noted as updated April 22, 2025 in Proton’s own blog materials [3]. Reporting outlets cite Proton’s multi-year record: Proton has maintained transparency reporting for years, with independent audits and an aggregate transparency effort across Proton services; Tom’s Guide and other outlets reported Proton’s Transparency Report showed 29 legal requests up to June 2025, all denied [4] [3]. Multiple sources describe Proton’s transparency program as ongoing and annualized alongside repeated third‑party no‑logs audits [10] [11]. The available reporting frames Proton’s coverage as multi-year and current through mid‑2025 [3] [4].
3. NordVPN: moved from canary to regular reports — monthly ambition, quarterly practice in media
NordVPN shifted away from a warrant canary toward published transparency reports beginning in late 2024 and committed to more frequent reporting thereafter [7]. Company announcements in October 2025 said it would provide monthly updates on government inquiries and DMCA requests; earlier reviews and press coverage characterize Nord’s published cadence as quarterly in some outlets [5] [6]. Reporting by CNET and other outlets documents Nord’s change in practice and that transparency reports now replace the prior canary, with the company indicating a phased approach that maintained the canary during transition [12] [5]. Sources show Nord’s transparency program began publicly in 2024 and was being expanded into monthly reporting as of late 2025; specific historical ranges depend on which Nord page or press post is consulted [7] [5].
4. How to compare the three: different philosophies, different time ranges
These three vendors fall into two broad camps: Mullvad rejects periodic legal‑request tallies on principle and leans on cryptographic and audit-based transparency (no defined report cadence or covered date ranges reported) [1] [8]. Proton publishes ongoing transparency material covering multiple years, with its public pages updated through April 2025 and data summarized through June 2025 in reporting [3] [4]. NordVPN moved to regular transparency reporting in late 2024 and has been reported as issuing quarterly summaries in some coverage, while announcing a shift to monthly reporting in 2025 communications [7] [5] [6]. All three supplement or rely on third‑party audits to provide independent verification of no‑logs claims [13] [10] [14].
5. Caveats, disagreements, and hidden agendas in the sources
Coverage differs by outlet and date: some outlets describe Nord’s cadence as quarterly (CNET) while the company’s later announcements state monthly reporting — both are true for different times [6] [5]. Mullvad’s refusal to publish a transparency report is framed by the company as a principled technical stance; reviewers criticize that choice as reducing an obvious consumer metric of accountability [2] [1]. Proton’s transparency figures (e.g., 29 requests denied to June 2025) come from its reports and are cited in tech press; Proton frames these figures to demonstrate adherence to no‑logs and legal resistance [4] [3]. Readers should note firms have incentives: VPNs use transparency reporting and audits as trust signals; how often and what’s included is tailored to PR and legal constraints [11] [12].
6. Practical takeaway for readers evaluating VPN transparency
If you want a running public log of government and DMCA requests with clear time ranges, Proton is the clearest documented option in current reporting (multi‑year coverage, updated through mid‑2025) and NordVPN has adopted regular reports since 2024 with an announced move to monthly reporting in 2025 [3] [4] [5] [7]. Mullvad focuses on cryptographic/system transparency and audits and explicitly declines to publish traditional transparency reports [8] [1] [2]. For decision-making, consult each provider’s transparency page and recent audit statements to confirm the exact report cadence and the date ranges covered in those documents [3] [5] [9].