IVPN occupies a small corner of the consumer VPN market, alongside Mullvad, where the company’s product decisions are visibly shaped by privacy commitments rather than growth ambitions. The user base is smaller, the marketing is quieter, and the product reflects different trade-offs than the venture-funded mainstream brands.
I have used IVPN as my secondary VPN for the past year. This is the practical assessment.
What IVPN is
IVPN is operated by Privatus Limited, a company headquartered in Gibraltar. The company has been operating since 2009, has not been acquired, and remains independently owned. The leadership has been consistent.
The product is a standard-feature VPN with a few principled choices that distinguish it from competitors. Open-source apps across Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, Android. WireGuard and OpenVPN protocol support. Server count is small (around 100 servers across 40 countries) compared to NordVPN’s 6000+ but the servers are physical hardware in real locations.
The pricing is similar to ProtonVPN and meaningfully more than the budget-tier providers. Standard plan is $6 per month or $60 per year. Pro plan (with multi-hop and port forwarding) is $10 per month or $100 per year.
What IVPN does well
The corporate alignment with privacy is structural. Like Mullvad, IVPN does not collect customer email addresses for the basic plan (you can sign up with just a username and a generated account ID). They accept anonymous payment methods including cash, Bitcoin, and Monero. They explicitly avoid the data-collection patterns common to mainstream consumer services.
The transparency reporting is detailed. IVPN publishes regular transparency reports listing the number of legal requests received and how they responded. The track record shows zero successful data productions to law enforcement, partly because the company’s data collection is structurally limited.
The audit history is solid. Cure53 has audited IVPN’s apps and infrastructure multiple times, with reports published. The audits are real, the firm is reputable, and the published findings are detailed.
The apps are open source. Source code is on GitHub for all platforms. Independent reviewers can verify what the binary does.
The Pro plan’s multi-hop feature is useful for specific threat models. You can route traffic through two IVPN servers in different jurisdictions, making correlation attacks meaningfully harder. Most consumer VPNs do not offer multi-hop.
The “anti-tracker” feature blocks tracker domains at the VPN level (similar to how Mullvad and ProtonVPN work). Useful as a complement to browser-level ad blocking.
What IVPN does less well
Server speed is competitive but not class-leading. In our testing, IVPN’s WireGuard delivered 600 to 800 Mbps on European servers and 400 to 600 Mbps on transpacific routes. NordVPN’s NordLynx and ExpressVPN’s Lightway are faster.
The server network is small. 100 servers across 40 countries. For users who specifically need uncommon server locations, IVPN may not have coverage where you need it.
Streaming compatibility is unreliable. IVPN does not actively maintain streaming-optimized server pools. Netflix US works some of the time, fails frequently. If streaming is your primary use case, IVPN is not the answer.
The apps are functional but not particularly polished. The Linux client is one of the better Linux VPN clients but does not match Proton’s polish. The mobile apps are fine.
The brand recognition is essentially zero outside privacy circles. Recommending IVPN to non-technical users requires more explanation than Nord or Express.
The Standard plan’s $60 per year is more expensive than NordVPN’s first-year promotional rate ($40-something for two years). The structural pricing matches Mullvad’s flat €60/year and exceeds Surfshark’s promotional pricing.
How IVPN compares to Mullvad
These two are the closest competitors in the principled-small-VPN space. The differences:
IVPN has a more polished product. Better web dashboard, somewhat smoother apps.
Mullvad has a cleaner business model. The €5 flat monthly pricing is simpler than IVPN’s tiered structure.
IVPN supports multi-hop. Mullvad does too as of 2024 but it has been longer-established at IVPN.
Mullvad has a slightly larger user base and somewhat better community presence.
IVPN’s transparency reporting is more detailed. Mullvad publishes some transparency information but less systematically.
For a fresh recommendation today, Mullvad is slightly more well-known but IVPN is comparable in quality. Either is a defensible choice for the privacy-purist audience.
Who should buy IVPN
You want a small, principled VPN provider with structural privacy alignment.
You value the multi-hop feature for specific threat-modeling reasons.
You want anonymous payment options and minimal account information.
You want open-source apps that you can verify.
You do not need streaming compatibility or maximum speeds.
You are willing to pay $60 to $100 per year for the alignment with your values.
Who should not buy IVPN
You need streaming. Pick NordVPN or ExpressVPN.
You need maximum speeds. NordVPN’s NordLynx is faster.
You want the absolute cheapest option. Surfshark or NordVPN’s two-year promotional plans are cheaper.
You are deep in another VPN’s ecosystem and switching cost outweighs benefit.
You need Asian server coverage. IVPN’s Asian server network is sparse.
Final recommendation
For users specifically wanting principled small VPN: Mullvad first, IVPN second. Both are good; Mullvad has slightly more brand recognition.
For users who do not specifically care about the principled-small angle: any of the mainstream Big Three (NordVPN, ExpressVPN, ProtonVPN) is more practical.
For users transitioning from Mullvad to test alternatives: IVPN is worth a month-long trial.
Related: Why I keep recommending Mullvad, ProtonVPN editorial, VPN ownership map