Head-to-head comparison

CyberGhost vs PureVPN

PureVPN is the direct comparison point for CyberGhost's un-quantified “streaming-optimized servers” claim – PureVPN explicitly lists its streaming servers per platform, which CyberGhost does not.

Side-by-side

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

Factor	CyberGhost	PureVPN
Streaming-optimized servers	Yes, but count not published	Yes – explicitly listed per platform (Netflix, Hulu, etc.)
P2P/torrenting servers	Yes – P2P-optimized servers (features page)	Yes – dedicated P2P servers, also explicitly listed
Speed protocol	WireGuard, OpenVPN, IKEv2	WireGuard supported, historically slower reputation, improved in recent years
Price (best long-term plan)	$2.19/mo (26-mo plan, billed $56.94 upfront)	Budget-tier, roughly comparable to CyberGhost's intro rate
Simultaneous devices	7	10
Free plan	✗ No	✗ No – 7-day trial for a small fee

Where CyberGhost wins

CyberGhost has a longer, more established public track record and a broader named list of general streaming platforms (40+) than PureVPN typically markets.

Where PureVPN has the edge

PureVPN's willingness to explicitly list which servers are optimized for which platform is exactly the transparency CyberGhost's own streaming-server claim lacks – useful if you want to verify “streaming-optimized” before you buy rather than take the claim on faith.

✓ Bottom line

Choose CyberGhost for a broader named platform list and more established track record. Choose PureVPN if you specifically want a provider that discloses which servers are optimized for which streaming service.

Get CyberGhost VPN See all comparisons

Measured head-to-head: CyberGhost vs PureVPN

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

Measured	CyberGhost	PureVPN
Baseline download (VPN off)	295 Mbps	293 Mbps
Nearest Europe: server	Strasbourg	Frankfurt
Nearest Europe: download	194 Mbps (66%)	200 Mbps (68%)
Nearest Europe: upload	157 Mbps	170 Mbps
Nearest Europe: ping	42 ms	39 ms
Long-distance US: download	210 Mbps (71%)	209 Mbps (71%)
Long-distance US: ping	126 ms	177 ms
DNS leak test	captured	captured
WebRTC leak test	captured	captured
BBC iPlayer	captured	captured
Netflix	not captured	not captured

Takeaway: on the Europe route CyberGhost kept 66% of its baseline against 68% for PureVPN (a gap of 2 points); on the US route 71% against 71%. Gaps this small are inside the noise of a single run, so we do not call a winner on speed.

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 PureVPN?

On the nearest-European route CyberGhost delivered 194 Mbps against PureVPN's 200 Mbps (66% vs 68% of each baseline); on the US route 210 vs 209 Mbps. One run each, so treat small gaps as noise.

Is CyberGhost or PureVPN better for streaming?

We captured CyberGhost playing BBC iPlayer. For PureVPN we captured BBC iPlayer. 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.