Which privacy-focussed search engines have undergone full audits on their privacy claims?

1. What the sources actually document: product claims and reviewer tests, not audit certificates

Multiple overview and comparison pieces repeatedly describe search engines as “privacy-focused” and summarize their stated policies—DuckDuckGo is presented as a no‑tracking engine, Brave Search is described as using an independent index and claiming strong privacy, Startpage as anonymizing Google queries, Mojeek as independently indexed and non‑tracking, and Swisscows/Qwant/Kagi/MetaGer are grouped as privacy or privacy‑leaning options—yet those articles are largely lists, tests, or vendor descriptions rather than reports of formal audits by accredited third parties ^{[1] [2] [5] [4] [3]}.

2. Independent testing vs. a “full audit”: reviewers and tools do not substitute for audit reports

Some outlets ran hands‑on tests or used fingerprinting tools—PCMag’s review referenced using the EFF’s “Cover Your Tracks” tooling in testing Brave Search’s privacy in practice—but that is product testing rather than a documented, comprehensive privacy audit by an independent auditor with a public report and scope statement ^[2]. Similarly, many roundup sites claim engines “don’t track” or have “strict no‑logs,” but those are restatements of vendor policies or short tests, not the publication of audit findings ^{[1] [5]}.

3. Engines commonly claimed to be private (according to the reporting)

The reporting repeatedly lists DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, Startpage, Mojeek, Swisscows, Qwant, Kagi, MetaGer and others as privacy‑focused options, describing differences such as independent indexing (Brave, Mojeek), anonymization of Google results (Startpage), and European/regulatory positioning (Swisscows, Qwant) ^{[1] [5] [3] [6]}. Those descriptions establish which projects are marketed or perceived as privacy alternatives, but they do not, in the provided material, establish which have completed full, public audits.

4. What the reporting does not show: named, complete third‑party privacy audits

Across the supplied sources, there is no citation of a published, comprehensive audit report for any specific search engine that verifies all their privacy claims end‑to‑end (for example, log handling, telemetry, third‑party queries, ad systems and legal compliance) ^{[5] [1] [2] [3]}. Where the reporting mentions “audited” it tends to refer to other products (e.g., VPN providers) or to small technical tests and not to the sort of formal privacy attestation a security or accounting firm would publish ^[7].

5. How to interpret the gap and next steps for verification

Given the reporting gap, the fact that an engine is widely described as “privacy‑focused” should be treated as an operational claim, not audit proof; readers seeking audited assurance should look for a named auditor, a published scope and report, and corroborating transparency materials (logs, transparency reports, independent source code audits)—none of which appear in the supplied sources ^{[1] [3]}. Independent reviewer testing (like PCMag’s use of EFF tools) is useful but distinguishes itself from a full audit in both depth and legal/performance scope ^[2].

6. Conflicts of interest and implicit agendas in the reporting

Many of the pieces are listicles, product guides or affiliate‑supported reviews that can amplify vendor claims and usability narratives—affiliate incentives, SEO motives, or browser/editorial slants (for example Brave‑friendly coverage tied to browser ecosystems) are plausible drivers of coverage tone; readers should treat such articles as signal, not certified proof, in the absence of published audit reports in the sources provided ^{[5] [2]}.