Android VPNs protect traffic between the phone and the VPN server (useful on public Wi‑Fi and against ISP-level visibility), but they don’t magically make a user anonymous to websites they log into or apps that track them.

“Best” usually means: stable Android app, kill switch/Always-on compatibility, WireGuard/OpenVPN support, DNS leak resistance, and credible privacy proof (audits and/or transparent policies).

How to choose (quick checklist)

• Proof over promises: Prefer providers with recent, named third‑party audits/assessments verifying “no‑logs” or controls that enforce it (examples include Deloitte, KPMG, Cure53).
• Logging clarity: Read what’s still stored (even privacy-focused VPNs may store limited operational data like “last used” or aggregated metrics).
• Android readiness: Ensure the app supports Always‑on VPN and a kill switch approach (even if named differently), and confirm how split tunneling works (it can reveal app lists locally).​
• Jurisdiction + legal posture: Where the company operates and how it responds to legal requests matters; some providers explicitly say they can’t comply with requests for data they don’t have.

TOP-8 VPNs for Android (with technical, legal, personal notes)

1) Proton VPN

• Why it’s on the list: Strong emphasis on independently verified no‑logs claims, including regular third‑party no‑logs audits.​
• Data safety focus: “No‑logs” verification is positioned as a core trust pillar rather than an optional add-on.​

2) NordVPN

• Why it’s on the list: Publishes updates about repeated independent no‑logs assurance assessments (including a “fifth” assessment mentioned in recent materials).​
• Data safety focus: Audit/assurance cadence is used to support ongoing compliance rather than a one-time statement.​

3) ExpressVPN

• Why it’s on the list: Describes two independent audits (KPMG and Cure53) and frames them as checks on controls and core server tech designed to prevent activity/connection logging.​
• Data safety focus: States a “minimal data required to operate” approach and explicitly claims no activity logs and no connection logs, supported by audit work and its TrustedServer controls narrative.​

4) Surfshark

• Why it’s on the list: Reported to have a second Deloitte no‑logs assurance report (June 2026), described as verifying its no‑logs policy implementation across relevant infrastructure.​
• Data safety focus: The TechRadar write-up stresses that some free VPNs keep logs and that independent verification adds credibility compared to unaudited claims.​

5) Mullvad

• Why it’s on the list: Detailed, technical no‑logging policy documentation, including what is not logged (DNS requests, connection timestamps, IP addresses, bandwidth) and what limited operational data is handled.​
• Data safety focus: Uses anonymous numbered accounts (no username/password/email required by default) and explains payment and GDPR implications depending on payment method.​

6) IVPN

• Why it’s on the list: States its no‑logging claim was verified by an independent audit (Cure53), providing external validation framing.​
• Data safety focus: The value is “audit-backed privacy posture,” especially for users who want verification over marketing.​

7) Mozilla VPN

• Why it’s on the list: Widely reported to run on Mullvad-managed servers and to use WireGuard, aimed at a simpler consumer experience.​
• Data safety focus: Positioning leans toward “privacy-first, simple client” rather than highly customizable networking controls.​

8) Windscribe

• Why it’s on the list: Explicitly states “no identifying logs,” claims it doesn’t keep connection logs, IP timestamps, or session logs, and explains the limited data it does store (last used + total data used in a 30‑day period).​
• Data safety focus: Says email is optional and promotes privacy-friendly payment options, while also describing why the minimal stored data exists (free plan limits/abuse prevention).​

VPN Comparison Table (Android)

The table below compares 8 top VPNs for Android with a focus on what matters in real use: privacy proof (audits/assurance), logging transparency, jurisdiction/legal considerations, and user-data safety. Use it to quickly shortlist 2–3 services, then confirm the latest policy and audit details on each provider’s official site before subscribing.

VPN (Android)	Privacy proof (audits / assurance)	Logging / data minimization (as stated publicly)	Jurisdiction / legal angle (what matters)	Notable user-data safety notes
Proton VPN	Publishes annual third‑party no‑logs audits (4th consecutive audit noted in 2025 materials). ​	Audit messaging focuses on not keeping logs and not compromising privacy. ​	Switzerland-based positioning is commonly presented as privacy-friendly, and the product emphasizes verification of no‑logs. ​	Good pick if you want “audit-first” trust and transparency. ​
NordVPN	States a “fifth” no‑logs assurance assessment/audit in recent updates. ​	The assurance framing supports a “doesn’t store your data” narrative (implementation verified via assessments). ​	Corporate/legal trust relies heavily on repeated third‑party assurance rather than only policy text. ​	Strong for users who want big-provider scale plus audit signals. ​
ExpressVPN	Describes independent audits by KPMG and Cure53 tied to privacy policy and TrustedServer controls. ​	States it does not collect activity logs or connection logs, and says it only collects minimal data needed to operate the service. ​	Emphasizes compliance with privacy policy backed by external audits (scope depends on the audit). ​	Good if you prioritize external validation plus hardened server approach (TrustedServer narrative). ​
Surfshark	Reported to have a second Deloitte assurance report verifying no‑logs approach (June 2025). ​	The independent assurance angle is positioned as proof beyond marketing, especially compared to some free VPNs that keep logs. ​	Legal safety depends on what is provably not retained; assurance reports improve credibility of the no‑logs claim. ​	Good value for feature-heavy use, with privacy reinforced by repeated assurance reporting. ​
Mullvad	Detailed no‑logging policy page (and related documentation) describing exactly what is and isn’t stored. ​	States it logs no traffic, no DNS requests, no connection timestamps, no IP addresses, and no bandwidth; explains limited real-time connection counting and very short-lived web logs without IPs. ​	Explains that payments via third parties can involve personal data processing and GDPR applicability depending on payment/contact method. ​	Strong anonymity model via numbered accounts; careful readers should note payment-method tradeoffs. ​
IVPN	States its no‑logging claim was verified by an independent audit (Cure53). ​	Audit statement is used to support “no‑logs” trust posture (scope-based). ​	Legal robustness depends on what exists to hand over; audit-based privacy claims are a positive signal. ​	Strong for privacy-focused users who want an independently verified provider. ​
Mozilla VPN	Reported to use Mullvad-managed servers and WireGuard, aiming for a simpler consumer VPN. ​	Privacy stance is commonly presented as “no-logging” style (as described in reporting about the service). ​	Legal/jurisdiction considerations depend on the operating entity, but infrastructure partnership is a notable trust factor. ​	Good for users who want “simple VPN” UX with a known privacy-oriented infrastructure partner. ​
Windscribe	No “audit proof” claimed on the cited policy page; relies on explicit transparency-style statements. ​	States it does not keep connection logs, IP timestamps, or session logs; stores “last used” time and total data used in a 30‑day period (for free-tier limits/abuse prevention). ​	Says it has never complied with copyright/law-enforcement requests because it has no relevant identifying data. ​	Strong if you want clear disclosure of what is stored (and why), including optional email and crypto payment option.

Rules of use (practical + safety)

Use a VPN for: public Wi‑Fi, reducing ISP visibility, limiting IP-based tracking, and safer remote work when combined with HTTPS and device security.

Don’t treat a VPN as: protection from logging into accounts (Google/Meta/etc.), protection from malware, or a guarantee against all tracking methods; VPNs mainly protect the network path to the VPN server.

Avoid risky “free VPN” apps with unclear ownership or policies; TechRadar notes that some free VPNs keep logs and may expose identifying data, making privacy worse.​

Technical limitations (Android + VPN reality)

A VPN can fail open if not configured: without a kill switch/Always‑on behavior, brief disconnects can leak traffic outside the tunnel (especially during network switching).​

Split tunneling reduces protection by design: apps excluded from the VPN will use the normal network path, which can re-expose real IP and local DNS behavior depending on configuration.​

VPN cannot fix insecure endpoints: if an app or site itself collects identifying data, the VPN does not prevent that collection; it only changes the network route and visible IP to the destination.

Legal restrictions (what users must know)

“No‑logs” is not one universal standard: audits/assessments often verify controls and policy compliance within a defined scope, so readers should look for who audited, what they checked, and how often.

Jurisdiction and legal requests matter: Windscribe explicitly claims it has not complied with data requests because it lacks relevant data, illustrating how logging policy affects legal exposure.​

Payments can create identity trails: Mullvad explains that certain payment methods (bank wire/PayPal/credit card) involve third parties that keep records, reducing anonymity even if VPN usage logs aren’t stored.​

User data security (what “safe” looks like)

Prefer “data minimization”: ExpressVPN states it collects only minimal data needed to operate and claims it does not collect activity or connection logs, supported by its audit program narrative.​

Prefer transparent “what we store” pages: Windscribe openly lists limited stored data (last used + 30‑day bandwidth total) and what it does not store (connection logs, IP timestamps, session logs).​

Prefer providers that document internal handling: Mullvad documents what it doesn’t log, what it handles (aggregated metrics), and app behaviors (version checks, split tunneling app list retrieved locally and not sent).