Quad9 vs Google DNS: Privacy Comparison
Here we put Quad9 head-to-head with Google DNS across the six privacy factors that matter most: their data collection practices, encryption implementation, third-party data sharing, user privacy controls, transparency, and historical track record. While both products address similar requirements, the philosophies they bring to protecting users diverge sharply. Our assessment finds that Quad9 provides a noticeably better overall privacy experience, although neither service is without trade-offs that deserve a careful, detailed look.
Where the Scorecard Lands
Before the dimension-by-dimension breakdown, here is the summary our scoring produced. Across the six privacy dimensions we score, Quad9 finishes ahead of Google DNS, 43/60 to 37/60. 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 Quad9 ahead 8 to 7 out of 10. The tightest race is Data Collection, separated by just 1 point (Quad9 8/10, Google DNS 7/10). The full breakdown that follows shows where each point was won or lost.
Data Collection Practices
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. Quad9 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 Quad9 8/10 and Google DNS 7/10 in this category. The difference reflects not just the volume of data collected but the purpose and necessity of that collection.
Encryption Standards
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. Quad9 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, Quad9 scored 9/10 while Google DNS scored 8/10.
Third-Party Data Sharing
How services share data with third parties is a critical privacy dimension. This includes sharing with advertising networks, analytics providers, business partners, and in response to government requests. Quad9 maintains more restrictive policies regarding third-party data access. The data sharing practices affect not just privacy but also the security of user information, as each additional party with access represents a potential breach vector. Scores: Quad9 5/10, Google DNS 4/10.
Controls You Can Actually Use
How much say people have over their own data depends on whether the privacy controls a service offers are both present and actually useful. That spans opt-out switches for data collection, the ability to download and delete information, fine-grained permission settings, and how simply users can act on the rights granted to them under relevant privacy regulations. Quad9 delivers broader, easier-to-reach privacy controls. Scores: Quad9 6/10, Google DNS 5/10.
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. Quad9 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: Quad9 7/10, Google DNS 6/10.
Track Record Over Time
The record of privacy incidents, regulatory run-ins, and how a service answers vulnerabilities offers context you cannot ignore. Quad9 holds the stronger track record here, with a smaller count of incidents and a more responsible response to the problems that did surface. More often than not, what a service did in the past is the best guide to its future privacy conduct. Scores: Quad9 8/10, Google DNS 7/10.
Overall Verdict
Our comprehensive analysis gives Quad9 a total score of 43/60 and Google DNS a total score of 37/60. The overall winner for privacy is Quad9. While both services serve similar functional needs, the winner demonstrates a more privacy-respecting approach across the dimensions that matter most. That said, no service is perfect, and users should always configure privacy settings actively regardless of which option they choose. We recommend supplementing your choice with additional privacy tools, a VPN, DNS-level ad blocker, and privacy-focused browser, to build a comprehensive privacy posture. If your threat model requires the strongest possible privacy, consider whether an even more privacy-focused alternative exists in this category beyond the two compared here.