Which VPNs have independent audits verifying their no‑logs claims?

1. The audited shortlist: who has publishable third‑party verification

NordVPN has repeatedly submitted its no‑logs practices to major auditors including PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte, with multiple assurance reports concluding the service does not log browsing activity ^[1]. ExpressVPN has undergone many independent security audits of apps, server infrastructure and its no‑logs stance since 2019 and publishes transparency reports alongside audit results ^{[2] [4]}. Proton VPN runs annual third‑party audits and publicly states it passed a fourth consecutive audit confirming its strict no‑logs policy ^[3]. Surfshark has completed multiple independent audits, including work by Deloitte that reviewers cite as confirming minimal collection of customer data ^{[4] [9]}. Mullvad is notable for clean, jargon‑free policies and at least two external audits in 2021–2022 ^[5]. Private Internet Access (PIA) has had its privacy posture audited and is frequently cited by reviewers as independently verified ^{[6] [10]}. IPVanish reports two independent no‑logs audits, most recently by Schellman Compliance, LLC ^[7]. These providers appear repeatedly across industry roundups as audited examples ^{[11] [12] [13]}.

2. What those audits actually cover — and what they often don’t

Audit reports typically examine stated processes, server setup (for RAM‑only or “diskless” servers), app code, telemetry and policy wording rather than continuously monitor the company’s live operations, so auditors can validate architectures and procedures at a point in time but cannot guarantee the provider won’t change practices after the report ^{[2] [12]}. Several reviewers emphasize that audits may focus on configuration and infrastructure (for example RAM‑only servers) and app security, rather than being a forensic, perpetual proof of zero logging ^{[4] [13]}. Industry analysts therefore treat audits as important transparency signals, not absolute proof of permanent compliance ^[2].

3. Real‑world tests and legal pressure as complementary evidence

Beyond audits, journalists and researchers point to real‑world events — police raids, subpoenas or court cases —as additional tests of no‑logs claims because they can force disclosure or expose gaps; several trackers combine audits with incident histories to judge providers ^{[8] [12]}. Redact.dev and others explicitly compare audit results with outcomes of legal requests and security incidents to form a fuller picture of whether vendors’ promises hold up under pressure ^{[8] [12]}.

4. How to read the landscape when choosing a VPN

Prefer providers that publish full audit reports, name the auditing firm and update audits on an annual or regular cadence (examples include Proton’s annual audits and NordVPN/ExpressVPN’s repeated assessments) rather than vague statements about “audited” status ^{[3] [1] [2]}. Also weigh jurisdiction and server design (RAM‑only or TrustedServer architectures), transparency reporting and whether the audit scope is public, because those details matter when interpreting what “no‑logs” actually means in practice ^{[4] [2] [13]}.

5. Bottom line

Independent audits strengthen a VPN’s no‑logs claim, and several major providers — NordVPN, ExpressVPN, Proton VPN, Surfshark, Mullvad, PIA and IPVanish — have published such third‑party verifications or multiple audit reports that industry reviewers cite ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]}. Audits are necessary but not sufficient: they are snapshot validations that should be read alongside audit scope, transparency reports and any real‑world incidents to assess how much trust to place in a provider’s long‑term no‑logs promise ^{[2] [8] [12]}.