TorGuard has been running since 2012 and has built a loyal following among torrenting and streaming users for its permissive policies and dedicated IP options. What it hasn’t done in that entire time is commission a single independent audit of its no-logs claims, putting it in the same unverified category as several younger, less established providers.
What TorGuard’s policy actually claims
TorGuard’s privacy policy states it does not log VPN session data: no browsing activity, no connection timestamps tied to your traffic, no DNS query logs. The company points to its stated policy and its own history (it says it has never been compelled to hand over meaningful user data in response to a legal request) as evidence of compliance, rather than pointing to third-party verification.
That’s a meaningfully different standard than what NordVPN, Surfshark, ExpressVPN, and ProtonVPN offer, all four have submitted their infrastructure to independent auditors (PwC, Cure53, PwC, and KPMG respectively) who verified the no-logs claims against actual server configurations and code, not just policy documents.
The scorecard
In our test spreadsheet, TorGuard scores 3 out of 5 on our audited no-logs policy criterion, reflecting a stated no-logs policy with no independent verification. Its overall average sits at 3.5/5, with particular strength in bypass features (Shadowsocks, Tor integration, obfuscated servers all supported) and a comparatively weaker showing on the transparency and ownership criteria we track.
| Provider | Audited | Audit company | Logs claim |
|---|---|---|---|
| TorGuard | No | None | Stated no-logs, self-reported |
| NordVPN | Yes | PwC | Strict no-logs |
| Surfshark | Yes | Cure53 | Strict no-logs |
| ProtonVPN | Yes | KPMG | Strict no-logs |
| ExpressVPN | Yes | PwC | Strict no-logs |
Jurisdiction adds another layer
TorGuard is a US-based company, placing it inside the Five Eyes intelligence-sharing alliance and subject to US legal process for data requests. On its own, US jurisdiction isn’t disqualifying, Private Internet Access is also American and has proven its no-logs claim in court, twice, when it had nothing to hand over. But combined with the absence of an audit, TorGuard’s position rests entirely on trusting the company’s word rather than either independent verification or a real-world legal test.
Want to compare all VPNs side by side? Check our full VPN comparison table with scores across 18 criteria.
Does this actually matter for you?
For general privacy, streaming, and public Wi-Fi protection, TorGuard’s unaudited status is unlikely to be the deciding factor day to day. The company has operated for over a decade without a documented case of handing over meaningful user activity data, and its dedicated IP and Shadowsocks options are genuinely useful features for specific use cases like accessing services that flag shared VPN IPs.
If your threat model requires provable, independently audited no-logs behavior, journalism in hostile jurisdictions, high-stakes activism, or any situation where “the company says so” isn’t an acceptable standard, TorGuard is not where you should look. Mullvad (audited by Cure53, account-free, cash accepted) or ProtonVPN (KPMG-audited, Swiss jurisdiction) are stronger fits for that specific need.
TorGuard’s own transparency report
Unlike a handful of smaller providers that offer no public reporting at all, TorGuard does publish some transparency information about legal requests it receives, though it stops short of the detailed annual transparency reports that companies like ProtonVPN and Windscribe put out. The gap between “we publish some information” and “we submit to independent verification” is exactly the distinction that separates TorGuard from the five audited providers in our top tier, and it’s worth being precise about which category a given provider actually falls into rather than assuming any public statement equals third-party proof.
What TorGuard’s dedicated IP feature means for anonymity
Worth flagging separately: TorGuard sells dedicated (static) IP addresses as an add-on, a genuinely useful feature for avoiding the CAPTCHA and access problems that come with sharing an IP among many VPN users. But a dedicated IP is, by definition, a stable identifier tied specifically to your account across every session. If session-to-session anonymity matters more than convenience for your use case, a shared IP from a no-logs provider is the safer choice, the static IP add-on trades away exactly the anonymity property some users assume all VPN features preserve equally.
How TorGuard compares on everything else
It’s worth judging TorGuard’s privacy score in context rather than in isolation. A 3/5 audited no-logs score sits inside an otherwise solid 3.5/5 overall rating in our data. Its protocol support is broad (OpenVPN, WireGuard, and several proprietary options), its bypass and obfuscation toolkit is one of the more complete ones we track, and its streaming performance is respectable if inconsistent. The gap is specifically in third-party verification of the logging claim, not in the rest of the product.
What an audit would actually confirm
An independent no-logs audit means a security firm gets direct access to a provider’s server configurations, source code, and internal processes to verify that stated data practices match actual system behavior. TorGuard has not commissioned one in over a decade of operation. That’s not proof of wrongdoing, several long-running VPNs went years without a formal audit before eventually completing one, but it does mean that, as things stand, there’s no independent confirmation behind TorGuard’s claims, only the company’s own policy documents and track record.
Bottom line on trust versus proof
The distinction running through this whole comparison is trust versus proof. TorGuard asks you to trust a company with a genuinely long, clean operating history. NordVPN, Surfshark, ProtonVPN, and ExpressVPN ask you to trust an independent auditor’s confirmation instead, one extra layer of verification between the company’s claim and what you’re relying on. Neither approach guarantees perfect safety, audits are snapshots in time, not permanent guarantees, but the second approach is measurably stronger evidence, and it’s why our scoring treats the audit criterion as a real, weighted factor rather than a minor detail.
TorGuard has a clean public track record and a genuinely useful feature set, but it remains an unaudited provider in a market where five of its closest competitors have already done that work. Fine for everyday privacy, streaming, and torrenting where its permissive policies are a real advantage. Not the pick if your situation demands independently verified, provable no-logs behavior, choose Mullvad or ProtonVPN instead for that specific requirement.
What to do if you already use TorGuard
None of this means you need to cancel a TorGuard subscription today. If you’re using it for torrenting, streaming, or general privacy and it’s working well for your needs, an unaudited no-logs claim backed by a decade-plus clean track record is a reasonable risk for most people to accept. The practical steps worth taking regardless of provider: pay with cryptocurrency if anonymity from your billing information matters to you, since TorGuard accepts it, avoid the dedicated IP add-on if session-to-session anonymity is part of your threat model, and periodically check whether TorGuard has announced an audit, providers do sometimes commission one after years of holding out, often in response to competitive pressure once enough of the market has already done it.
Curious how TorGuard compares directly to other providers? See our guide on how to verify a VPN’s no-logs claims yourself, or check does ExpressVPN keep logs for a look at an audited alternative with a similar feature set.