CyberGhost (founded 2011, Romania) and Private Internet Access (founded 2010, United States) are both owned by Kape Technologies. Romania sits outside the 14 Eyes surveillance alliance; the US does not. PIA has a court-tested no-logs record; CyberGhost publishes quarterly transparency reports and operates RAM-only NoSpy servers. Neither is a clear overall winner — the right pick depends on which trade-offs matter most to you.
VPN comparison
CyberGhost vs Private Internet Access: An Honest Comparison
By Editorial Team · Last updated 25 June 2026
CyberGhost vs Private Internet Access: the verified facts
| VPN | Trust & certifications | pricing | money-back | Actions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| CyberGhost Since 2011 | Quarterly transparency reports; no-logs policy | — | — | |
| Private Internet Access Since 2010 | Open-source clients; court-tested no-logs | — | — |
CyberGhost Since 2011
- Trust & certifications
- Quarterly transparency reports; no-logs policy
- pricing
- —
- money-back
- —
Private Internet Access Since 2010
- Trust & certifications
- Open-source clients; court-tested no-logs
- pricing
- —
- money-back
- —
Only fields we can verify (certifications, confirmed specs, launch year) are shown.
How do they compare on the facts?
The most important fact to state upfront: both CyberGhost and Private Internet Access (PIA) are owned by Kape Technologies, the same London-based parent company that also owns ExpressVPN. Shared ownership does not make either service unsafe, but it is a material fact that affects how you evaluate claims of independence. CyberGhost is incorporated in Romania, which sits outside the 5 Eyes, 9 Eyes, and 14 Eyes intelligence-sharing alliances. PIA is incorporated in the United States — squarely inside the 5 Eyes — which means it is subject to US court orders and legal process. CyberGhost publishes quarterly transparency reports disclosing legal requests received and data it was unable to provide. Its NoSpy servers use a RAM-only architecture, meaning nothing is written to disk and data cannot persist across a reboot.
PIA's strongest verified credential is its no-logs policy being tested in practice rather than just on paper. On multiple occasions — including subpoenas and law-enforcement requests — PIA had no usable data to hand over, which is the most credible real-world validation a no-logs claim can receive. PIA also publishes open-source clients, meaning independent researchers can inspect the code rather than rely solely on the provider's word. CyberGhost has not published open-source clients. On the audit front, the verified record for both services is thinner than competitors such as Proton VPN (five consecutive annual audits) or NordVPN (Deloitte, December 2025) — factor that into your assessment.
Who suits whom?
CyberGhost is likely the better fit if jurisdiction is your primary concern. Romania's position outside the 14 Eyes framework means there is no automatic intelligence-sharing obligation with the US, UK, Canada, Australia, or New Zealand. The quarterly transparency reports add an ongoing disclosure layer — you can track legal requests over time rather than relying on a single point-in-time audit. The RAM-only NoSpy server architecture is a meaningful technical control for users who want to reduce the risk of data persistence on server hardware. If you are primarily concerned about where your traffic data might end up in a legal scenario, the Romanian domicile provides a structural advantage over a US-based provider.
PIA suits users who weight open-source verifiability and a proven courtroom record above jurisdiction. Open-source clients mean the no-logs architecture can be independently verified by anyone with the skills to read the code — you are not taking the provider's word for it. The subpoena track record is arguably the most concrete privacy evidence any VPN can offer: the provider was legally compelled to produce data and had nothing to give. For users who distrust marketing audits or find transparency reports insufficient, that is a harder form of evidence. The US jurisdiction is a genuine downside, but for users whose threat model centres on data-retention practices rather than cross-border intelligence sharing, PIA's demonstrated record may carry more weight than CyberGhost's jurisdictional advantage.
Frequently asked questions
Which is better, CyberGhost or Private Internet Access?
Neither is objectively better — it depends on what you prioritise. CyberGhost offers a more favourable jurisdiction (Romania, outside 14 Eyes), quarterly transparency reports, and RAM-only NoSpy servers. PIA offers open-source clients and a court-tested no-logs record. Both are owned by Kape Technologies, which you should factor into any assessment of independence. If jurisdiction is your top concern, CyberGhost has the structural advantage; if verifiable code and proven courtroom outcomes matter more, PIA has the stronger evidence.
Are CyberGhost and PIA owned by the same company?
Yes. Both CyberGhost and Private Internet Access are owned by Kape Technologies, a London-based company that also owns ExpressVPN. Kape acquired PIA in 2019 and CyberGhost was already part of the group before that. Shared ownership under a single corporate parent is a material consideration when evaluating claims of independence, and it is worth comparing both services against providers outside the Kape group — such as Proton VPN (majority-owned by the non-profit Proton Foundation) or Mullvad (founder-owned by Amagicom AB in Sweden).
Does CyberGhost or PIA have a stronger privacy track record?
They have demonstrated privacy credibility in different ways. PIA's no-logs policy has been tested by real subpoenas — law enforcement requested data and PIA had nothing to hand over, which is the most concrete form of validation available. CyberGhost has not published the same type of courtroom evidence, but it does publish quarterly transparency reports disclosing legal requests and operates RAM-only NoSpy servers that cannot retain data between reboots. CyberGhost's Romanian jurisdiction also provides a structural layer that PIA's US incorporation does not. Neither has amassed the audit depth of services like Proton VPN or NordVPN.