Which Firefox forks or alternatives do privacy guides currently recommend and why?

1. Firefox itself: the baseline for customization and containers

Many guides still name Firefox as the primary recommendation for privacy-minded users because it is the major non‑Chromium engine that supports deep customization — from Enhanced Tracking Protection to Multi-Account Containers — making it the best "balance" of privacy, features, and extension compatibility for power users who will tune settings themselves ^{[1] [7]}.

2. LibreWolf: hardened defaults and telemetry removal

LibreWolf is repeatedly recommended when guides want a Firefox experience without Mozilla’s default telemetry, commercial tie‑ins, or less‑private defaults; it’s described as built from the latest Firefox stable source but with hardened privacy defaults to reduce tracking out of the box, making it a go‑to for users who want "maximum privacy" without manually reconfiguring Firefox ^{[4] [2]}.

3. Waterfox and other conservative forks: legacy support with privacy tweaks

Waterfox appears in review roundups as a practical, familiar fork that keeps Firefox extension compatibility while changing defaults to favor privacy; testing shows strong tracker blocking though some fingerprinting limitations remain, and Waterfox’s default search-provider and fingerprint claims are noted as work-in-progress or imperfect in third‑party tests ^{[3] [8]}.

4. Tor Browser: anonymity over convenience

When guides say “maximum anonymity,” they point to Tor Browser — a Firefox derivative configured to route traffic through the Tor network, bundle privacy extensions, and harden fingerprinting — with the explicit tradeoff that Tor is slower and sometimes incompatible with websites that expect standard browser behavior ^{[6] [8]}.

5. Brave and Chromium-based privacy-first alternatives

For users who need Chromium compatibility (extensions/sites) plus stronger out‑of‑the‑box tracker and ad blocking, privacy guides often recommend Brave as the best privacy-to-effort option: it removes many trackers by default and aims for speed while still being Chromium‑based, making it a frequent recommendation for those who cannot leave the Chromium ecosystem ^{[1] [7]}.

6. Mobile and niche forks: Fennec, Floorp, IronFox and the Android caveats

Android‑focused forks like Fennec and others appear in roundups as useful alternatives: Fennec strips telemetry and preserves about:config access but is distributed via F‑Droid rather than the Play Store, which presents an adoption barrier; Floorp and other community projects emphasize privacy and productivity tweaks but vary in platform coverage and maturity ^{[5] [8] [9]}.

7. Tradeoffs flagged by reviewers: updates, fingerprints, and false equivalences

Privacy guides consistently warn about two recurring caveats: forks sometimes lag behind upstream security updates or change defaults in cosmetic ways rather than meaningful hardening, and anti‑fingerprinting claims vary — some forks rely on blocklists rather than true fingerprint randomization, which can leave a unique fingerprint despite blocking trackers ^{[10] [3]}. Reviewers also note that not all "Firefox forks" differ substantially from vanilla Firefox beyond default settings ^{[10] [11]}.

8. How guides match recommendations to threat models

The pattern across sources is prescriptive: recommend Firefox for configurable privacy and containers, LibreWolf or Waterfox for stricter out‑of‑box privacy, Tor for true anonymity needs, and Brave for low‑effort privacy within Chromium compatibility constraints; mobile recommendations often add friction (side‑loading, missing Play Store availability) and thus require user effort ^{[1] [2] [6] [5]}.