Mullvad vs TunnelBear: Privacy Comparison
This in-depth comparison weighs Mullvad against TunnelBear along six decisive privacy dimensions: how data is collected, how encryption is implemented, how data is shared with third parties, what privacy controls users get, how transparent each service is, and what their historical track record looks like. The two cover much the same ground, yet they handle user privacy in very different ways. What our review shows is that Mullvad delivers a clearly stronger privacy experience on balance, even though each option has its own relative pluses and minuses that are worth examining closely.
The Verdict at a Glance
Before the dimension-by-dimension breakdown, here is the summary our scoring produced. Across the six privacy dimensions we score, Mullvad finishes ahead of TunnelBear, 50/60 to 38/60. That total reflects a privacy comparison in which one service is consistently the more privacy-respecting choice, even though both cover the same functional ground.
Data Collection produced the widest separation between the two, with Mullvad ahead 10 to 8 out of 10. On Data Collection the margin nearly vanishes: Mullvad 10/10 against TunnelBear 8/10. Read on for the dimension-by-dimension reasoning behind these figures.
How Each Service Collects Data
Data collection is the foundation of any privacy assessment. The extent to which a service collects, retains, and processes user data directly determines the privacy risks associated with its use. Mullvad demonstrates more restrained data collection practices, gathering only the minimum data necessary for service functionality. The other service collects a broader range of data including behavioral patterns, device identifiers, and usage analytics that extend beyond core service requirements. We scored Mullvad 10/10 and TunnelBear 8/10 in this category. The difference reflects not just the volume of data collected but the purpose and necessity of that collection.
Encryption Implementation
Encryption guards user data as it moves and while it sits at rest, and how well it is built differs enormously from one service to the next. Mullvad puts tougher encryption in place, with sturdier protocols shielding data in transit and stronger safeguards for what is stored. The two implementations part ways on coverage (which data actually gets encrypted), on strength (which algorithms and key lengths back it up), and on whether end-to-end encryption is in play (which keeps even the provider from reading user content). For encryption, Mullvad scored 6/10 while TunnelBear scored 4/10.
Who Else Gets Your Data
One of the most important privacy questions is how freely a service passes data along to others. The list of recipients can run from advertising networks and analytics providers to business partners and government requests. Mullvad draws firmer limits around third-party access to user data. Such practices matter for security and not only privacy, because each new entity with access is another door through which a breach could occur. Scores: Mullvad 7/10, TunnelBear 5/10.
Controls You Can Actually Use
The availability and effectiveness of user-facing privacy controls determine how much agency individuals have over their own data. This includes settings for data collection opt-out, download and deletion capabilities, granular permission controls, and the ease with which users can exercise their rights under applicable privacy regulations. Mullvad provides more comprehensive and accessible privacy controls. Scores: Mullvad 8/10, TunnelBear 6/10.
How Clearly They Explain Themselves
Transparency comes down to how plainly a service explains what it does with data. It shows up in how readable the privacy policy is, whether transparency reports are published, how quickly privacy questions get answered, and whether policy changes are communicated up front. Mullvad comes across as the more transparent of the two overall. Plain, easy-to-find privacy communication is the bedrock of informed consent and trust. Scores: Mullvad 9/10, TunnelBear 7/10.
Historical Track Record
A service's history of privacy incidents, regulatory actions, and responses to vulnerabilities provides important context. Mullvad has a stronger historical record on privacy, with fewer incidents and more responsible handling of the issues that have arisen. Past behavior is often the best predictor of future privacy practices. Scores: Mullvad 10/10, TunnelBear 8/10.
Our Bottom-Line Call
Adding everything up, our full analysis lands Mullvad at 50/60 and TunnelBear at 38/60. For privacy, the overall winner is Mullvad. The two cover much the same functional ground, but the winner takes a more privacy-respecting stance across the dimensions that count for the most. Even so, no service is flawless, and whichever option you pick, you should always tune its privacy settings deliberately. We suggest pairing your choice with extra privacy tools, a VPN, DNS-level ad blocker, and privacy-focused browser, so you end up with a well-rounded privacy posture. And if your threat model demands the very highest level of privacy, it is worth asking whether an even more privacy-focused alternative exists in this category beyond the two compared here.