Head-to-head comparison

CyberGhost vs Surfshark

Surfshark's headline feature for streaming households is unlimited simultaneous devices – every phone, laptop and TV in the house on one subscription. CyberGhost caps at 7 but counters with a more explicit named list of unblockable platforms.

Side-by-side

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

Factor	CyberGhost	Surfshark
Streaming-optimized servers	Yes, but count not published	No dedicated label – Bypasser split-tunneling for streaming apps
P2P/torrenting servers	Yes – P2P-optimized servers (features page)	P2P allowed on all servers, no dedicated labeling
Speed protocol	WireGuard, OpenVPN, IKEv2	WireGuard, competitive independent speed results
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	Unlimited
Free plan	✗ No	✗ No – but offers app-store trials

Where CyberGhost wins

CyberGhost's named 40+ platform list and P2P-optimized servers are more explicitly documented than Surfshark's more general “works with most services” positioning.

Where Surfshark has the edge

Surfshark's unlimited-device policy is a genuine structural advantage for a household streaming on multiple screens at once – CyberGhost's 7-device cap means budgeting devices carefully by comparison, and Surfshark's price is competitive with CyberGhost's own intro rate.

✓ Bottom line

Choose CyberGhost if you want an explicitly named list of 40+ unblockable platforms. Choose Surfshark if unlimited devices for a whole household streaming simultaneously matters more than the specific platform list.

Get CyberGhost VPN See all comparisons

Measured head-to-head: CyberGhost vs Surfshark

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

Measured	CyberGhost	Surfshark
Baseline download (VPN off)	295 Mbps	296 Mbps
Nearest Europe: server	Strasbourg	Manchester
Nearest Europe: download	194 Mbps (66%)	210 Mbps (71%)
Nearest Europe: upload	157 Mbps	181 Mbps
Nearest Europe: ping	42 ms	79 ms
Long-distance US: download	210 Mbps (71%)	203 Mbps (69%)
Long-distance US: ping	126 ms	112 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 71% for Surfshark (a gap of 5 points); on the US route 71% against 69%. 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 Surfshark?

On the nearest-European route CyberGhost delivered 194 Mbps against Surfshark's 210 Mbps (66% vs 71% of each baseline); on the US route 210 vs 203 Mbps. One run each, so treat small gaps as noise.

Is CyberGhost or Surfshark better for streaming?

We captured CyberGhost playing BBC iPlayer. For Surfshark 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.