Head-to-head comparison

CyberGhost vs NordVPN

Both are Deloitte-audited and lean on speed for their streaming pitch – NordVPN with its NordLynx protocol and independently benchmarked speed tests, CyberGhost with 10-Gbps hardware and streaming-optimized servers. The gap is mostly in transparency and device count.

Side-by-side

Head-to-head comparisons, with our own measurements where we have them.

Factor	CyberGhost	NordVPN
Streaming-optimized servers	Yes, but count not published	No dedicated label – relies on large network + SmartPlay Smart DNS
P2P/torrenting servers	Yes – P2P-optimized servers (features page)	Yes – P2P allowed on specific servers, clearly documented
Speed protocol	WireGuard, OpenVPN, IKEv2	NordLynx (WireGuard-based), consistently strong in independent speed tests
Price (best long-term plan)	$2.19/mo (26-mo plan, billed $56.94 upfront)	Roughly $3–$5/mo on 2-year plans
Simultaneous devices	7	10
Free plan	✗ No	✗ No

Where CyberGhost wins

CyberGhost's 26-month intro rate typically undercuts NordVPN's equivalent term, and its named list of 40+ unblockable platforms is more explicit than NordVPN's general unblocking reputation.

Where NordVPN has the edge

NordVPN covers more simultaneous devices (10 vs. 7), publishes a much larger total server count, and its NordLynx protocol has a longer public track record in independent speed benchmarks – useful if raw, verifiable speed is your top priority.

✓ Bottom line

Choose CyberGhost if price and a broad named streaming-platform list matter most. Choose NordVPN if you want more devices covered and a speed protocol with a longer independent benchmark history.

Get CyberGhost VPN See all comparisons

Measured head-to-head: CyberGhost vs NordVPN

Our own captures for CyberGhost and NordVPN, side by side, with every gap and every limit.

Measured	CyberGhost	NordVPN
Baseline download (VPN off)	295 Mbps	294 Mbps
Nearest Europe: server	Strasbourg	Berlin
Nearest Europe: download	194 Mbps (66%)	210 Mbps (72%)
Nearest Europe: upload	157 Mbps	181 Mbps
Nearest Europe: ping	42 ms	31 ms
Long-distance US: download	210 Mbps (71%)	200 Mbps (68%)
Long-distance US: ping	126 ms	111 ms
DNS leak test	captured	captured
WebRTC leak test	captured	captured
BBC iPlayer	captured	captured
Netflix	not captured	captured

Takeaway: on the Europe route CyberGhost kept 66% of its baseline against 72% for NordVPN (a gap of 6 points); on the US route 71% against 68%. The gap is large enough to be worth noting, though it is still one run per route.

Same line and machine with a fresh baseline for each VPN. Server country and protocol can differ; one run per route.

Download kept is the measured download divided by that VPN's own baseline, which removes small differences between baselines.

Ping is the latency to the nearest Speedtest server on that route; it rises with distance, not only with the VPN.

Captured means we hold a recording or screenshot; not captured is not a failure, only a gap.

Questions people ask

Short answers, based on our own captures and the data on this site.

Which is faster, CyberGhost or NordVPN?

On the nearest-European route CyberGhost delivered 194 Mbps against NordVPN's 210 Mbps (66% vs 72% of each baseline); on the US route 210 vs 200 Mbps. One run each, so treat small gaps as noise.

Is CyberGhost or NordVPN better for streaming?

We captured CyberGhost playing BBC iPlayer. For NordVPN we captured BBC iPlayer, Netflix. Missing results mean not captured, not failed.

Were both tested under the same conditions?

Same line and machine with a fresh baseline for each, but the server country and protocol can differ; the table lists them.

Where can I see the raw captures?

The screenshots and recordings for CyberGhost are on its tests pages. We publish captures only for the VPN each site is about.