Loading...
Skip to content
Security Advisor Hub Community Logo
Say Hello
Methodology

How Security Advisor Hub Evaluates VPNs

We evaluate VPNs using a consistent, evidence-led rubric built for real decision moments — privacy posture, security architecture, performance reliability, usability, and value. Affiliate relationships never influence scores or rankings.

Methodology v1.0 Last updated: [Month Day, Year]
Quick start
Jump to any section:
Our goal
How scoring works
Evaluation pillars
Signals (Good / Caution / Watch)
Scenario weighting
Evidence & inputs
What we cover
Affiliate links
Updates & versioning
FAQ

Our goal

Help people make clear, confident VPN decisions when trade-offs matter — privacy, trust, access, speed, and price — without hype or pay-to-rank placement.

What you can expect from our evaluations

  • Consistent scoring so you can compare providers side-by-side.
  • Scenario-led recommendations (streaming, travel, switching, remote work, privacy-first).
  • Explainable conclusions — we show the “why,” not just the “what.”
  • Independence — affiliate commissions never determine scores or ordering.

How scoring works

Each VPN receives structured scores across core pillars using a 1–5 scale. We then publish scenario-weighted recommendations that reflect what matters most for specific use cases.

Scores are an editorial evaluation tool for decisions — not a guarantee of privacy, safety, or outcomes. Your threat model, configuration, and context always matter.

The score is
A consistent rubric applied across providers to make trade-offs visible.
The score isn’t
A promise of anonymity, a legal shield, or a guarantee of access.
Important note
No VPN is “best for everyone.” Our recommendations reflect relative strengths for specific scenarios, and we make trade-offs explicit so you can choose with clarity.

Our evaluation pillars (v1.0)

We score each VPN across the same core pillars so comparisons stay consistent and conclusions don’t contradict.

How affiliate links work

1) Privacy & Logging

Logging clarity, retention scope, audit signals, and jurisdiction posture.

2) Security Architecture

Protocols, encryption, leak protection, kill-switch behavior, and hardening signals.

3) Performance

Speed impact, stability, region consistency, and congestion resilience.

4) Usability

App UX, setup friction, platform coverage, device limits, and support quality.

5) Value

Pricing transparency, renewals, refund policy, and cost-per-device reality.

Where “streaming” and “trust” fit
Streaming reliability is reflected primarily in Performance (and scenario weighting), while trust signals like audits, ownership clarity, and incident posture are treated as evidence inputs that influence the relevant pillar(s), especially Privacy & Logging and Security Architecture.

Signals: Good, Caution, Watch

Alongside numeric scores, we publish quick signals to make the decision moment faster. Signals summarize strength and risk based on available evidence.

Good
Strong, consistent evidence and low-friction trade-offs for mainstream scenarios.
Caution
Mixed signals or meaningful caveats; may still be a good fit depending on your scenario.
Watch
A known limitation or uncertainty that matters for higher-risk users or critical use cases.
What signals are not
Signals are not legal claims, guarantees, or predictions. They reflect documented information at the time of review.

Scenario weighting: fit matters

We publish a base evaluation for each VPN, then weight what matters most depending on your scenario. That’s why “best for streaming” can differ from “best for privacy.”

Common scenarios we evaluate for

  • Streaming: reliability + stability under peak conditions (changes over time).
  • Privacy-first: logging clarity, audit signals, and architecture posture.
  • Switching providers: value, renewals, reliability, and “is it meaningfully better?”
  • Remote work: stability, multi-device use, and low-friction UX.
  • Travel / geo-access: network stability across regions and restricted networks.
How weighting works
Weighting changes relevance — not truth. The underlying pillar scores remain the same; scenarios emphasize what matters most.

Evidence & inputs we use

Our evaluations are built from structured research and standardized rubrics — not scraped catalog listings or paid placements.

Primary sources

  • Official provider policies, documentation, and transparency statements
  • Published audits and security reports (where available)
  • Pricing, refund, and renewal terms
  • Supported platforms, protocols, and documented features

Secondary signals (used cautiously)

  • Reputable benchmarking summaries (for performance context)
  • Large-scale public sentiment (app stores, Trustpilot) — not a primary driver
  • Support responsiveness indicators when documented

What we cover

We focus on high-demand VPN providers that people commonly compare in real decision moments — and that can be evaluated consistently.

We prioritize providers that are
  • Well-documented publicly
  • Comparable under consistent criteria
  • Representative of the category
  • Frequently searched and compared
We may exclude providers that
  • Lack sufficient public detail
  • Change terms without clear documentation
  • Can’t be evaluated consistently
  • Are outside our current scope
Not listed doesn’t mean “bad”
If a provider isn’t listed, it may be outside our current coverage scope or lack enough public information to evaluate consistently.

How affiliate links work

Some links on Security Advisor Hub are affiliate links. If you purchase through them, we may earn a commission — at no additional cost to you.

Affiliate partnerships do not influence scores, ranking order, or inclusion decisions. We do not accept pay-to-rank placements or sponsored “best of” fees.

We do
  • Disclose affiliate relationships clearly
  • Use consistent rubrics and scenario weighting
  • Link to official provider pages for final details
We don’t
  • Sell rankings or placements
  • Let commissions determine order
  • Publish verdicts without explainable criteria
Read the full affiliate disclosure

Updates & versioning

VPN services evolve: apps change, policies update, performance shifts, and pricing moves. We review and update evaluations when meaningful changes occur.

What we publish on pages
  • Last reviewed date so you can judge freshness.
  • Pricing notes (including renewals) when publicly available.
  • Clear “best for” statements tied to scenarios and trade-offs.
Methodology versioning
Current methodology: v1.0. If criteria or weighting changes, we update the version and explain what changed.

FAQ

Quick answers to common questions about our VPN evaluation methodology.

No. Affiliate partnerships do not influence scores, ranking order, or inclusion decisions. We don’t accept pay-to-rank placements.

No. Scores and signals reflect an evaluation under defined criteria, not a guarantee. Security depends on your situation, configuration, and threat model.

Because users value different outcomes in different scenarios. We keep the same pillar scores, then weight pillars based on scenario relevance.

We may consider large-scale public signals cautiously, but they are not primary drivers. We prioritize policies, documented features, and verification signals.

Regularly. Each page includes a “Last reviewed” date, and we update when policies, pricing, features, or performance change meaningfully.

Where to start

Start with scenario-led “Best” pages, then deep-dive reviews when you’re close to a decision.

Best VPNs Compare VPNs