Disclosure: VPNFin is reader-supported. If you buy a VPN through links on this page, we may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. This never affects our ratings — here’s our full disclosure.
Surfshark and TorGuard answer the torrenting question in opposite ways. Surfshark allows P2P on every server in its network, including the United States, but offers no port forwarding. TorGuard includes port forwarding, yet since March 2022 it has blocked BitTorrent on all its US servers under a settlement with film studios.
Beyond torrents, the gap widens. Surfshark has two Deloitte audits, unlimited devices and a low price on its long plan. TorGuard has no audit in over a decade, closed-source apps and a Florida base, and sells itself to technical users who want dedicated IPs and fine control.
Surfshark vs TorGuard: The Short Answer
Choose Surfshark for most uses. It rates 4.6 in our Surfshark review, with unlimited devices, P2P everywhere and two published audits. It has no port forwarding.
Choose TorGuard only for port forwarding or dedicated IPs, and only if you torrent from outside the United States. It rates 3.1 in our TorGuard review.
On price, Surfshark’s long plan is hard to beat: $67.23 for 27 months, then a reported $79 a year. TorGuard’s reported prices run from about $4.27 to $10.99 a month on its Standard plan, with streaming on a higher tier.
Torrenting: Two Different Trade-Offs
Surfshark allows P2P across its whole network, without routing you to a special list of servers first, as our review records. That includes US servers.
TorGuard blocks BitTorrent on every US server. The March 2022 settlement with roughly twenty-five film studios required it to filter the protocol there. Servers in other countries still carry it, and TorGuard says so plainly.
Port forwarding reverses the picture. TorGuard includes it, which helps seeding and private trackers. Surfshark does not offer it at all. Our port forwarding guide lists the providers that still do, and our torrenting guide explains who needs it.
Why TorGuard Blocks Torrents in the US
In October 2021 roughly twenty-five film studios sued TorGuard, alleging its marketing encouraged infringement. The evidence centred on about 97,640 infringement notices sent to its hosting provider, which neither acted on them nor passed them on.
The case settled in March 2022 with no money changing hands. TorGuard agreed to use firewall technology to block BitTorrent on its US servers. The studios had pressed other providers to keep logs of user behaviour, so TorGuard’s trade was a protocol block on one network rather than records on every customer. Our review calls that defensible, and so do we.
Privacy and Audits
Surfshark has two no-logs assurance reports by Deloitte, from 2023 and June 2025, and Cure53 has reviewed its infrastructure. It is based in the Netherlands, a Nine Eyes member. Our audit tracker sets that record in context.
TorGuard has no audit after more than a decade. Its case rests on its policy and on its conduct in 2022, when it settled with the studios by filtering a protocol rather than keeping logs. Our no-logs guide explains why that counts, and why an audit counts more.
Ownership differs too. Surfshark belongs to Nord Security, which also owns NordVPN, while TorGuard’s owner, VPNetworks LLC in Orlando, is bootstrapped and owns nothing else we cover. Our ownership guide maps both.
| Provider | No-logs audits | Auditor | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|---|---|
| NordVPN | 6 | PwC, Deloitte | Panama |
| Surfshark | 2 | Deloitte | Netherlands (9 Eyes) |
| ExpressVPN | 3 | KPMG (28 security reports in total) | British Virgin Islands, Kape-owned |
| CyberGhost | 3 | Deloitte | Romania, Kape-owned |
| PureVPN | 4 | KPMG | BVI, operated from Pakistan |
| IPVanish | 2 | Leviathan, Schellman | United States (Five Eyes), Ziff Davis-owned |
| Windscribe | 1 | Packetlabs, production infrastructure | Canada (Five Eyes); Greek case dismissed, no data to give |
| Proton VPN | 5 | Securitum | Switzerland, moving infrastructure to EU |
| Private Internet Access | 3 | Deloitte | United States (Five Eyes), Kape-owned |
| Mullvad | 10+ | Cure53, Assured AB | Sweden (14 Eyes) |
| TunnelBear | Annual since 2017 | Cure53 | Canada (Five Eyes), US parent |
| Norton VPN | 2 | VerSprite | United States (Five Eyes) |
| Hotspot Shield | 0 | protocol audited, policy not | United States (Five Eyes) |
| AirVPN | 0 | none — the client is open source instead | Italy (14 Eyes) |
| IVPN | 8, annual since inception | Cure53 | Gibraltar (status disputed) |
| Hide.me | 1 modern, in 2024 | Securitum, though one source names Altius IT | Malaysia (outside the alliances) |
| PrivadoVPN | 0 | none in six years of operation | Iceland (moved from Switzerland, 2026) |
| TorGuard | 0 | none; settled a lawsuit without disclosing records | United States (Five Eyes) |
| FastestVPN | 1, in 2023 | Altius IT | Cayman Islands (outside the alliances) |
| StrongVPN | 0 | none in over two decades | United States (Five Eyes), Ziff Davis-owned |
| VyprVPN | 1, in 2018 | Leviathan Security, before the 2023 sale | United States (Five Eyes), Certida-owned since 2023 |
| PrivateVPN | 0 | none; support says there is nothing to audit | Sweden (14 Eyes), ownership disputed |
| ZoogVPN | 0 | none; support describes one as planned | Greece (outside the alliances), run from Ukraine |
| Malwarebytes Privacy VPN | 1, in 2026 | X41 D-Sec, white-box over two months | United States (Five Eyes), runs AzireVPN infrastructure |
| Astrill | 0 | — | Disputed: Seychelles or Liechtenstein |
Price
Surfshark Starter costs $67.23 for its first 27 months. After that, reviewers report $79 a year, though Surfshark publishes renewal prices only on a separate billing page, by location, and reserves the right to test them. Our Surfshark price page explains where to find it.
TorGuard’s pricing is harder to read. Our review found reported Standard prices from about $4.27 to $10.99 a month, with streaming access on a higher tier and dedicated IPs sold separately.
⚠️ Compare the tier you actually need. If you stream, TorGuard’s relevant price is the higher one.
Devices, Streaming and Ease of Use
Devices: Surfshark sets no limit on simultaneous connections. Our multi-device guide compares it with capped providers.
Streaming: Surfshark works with the major Netflix libraries in 2026 tests, as our Surfshark and Netflix page records. TorGuard puts streaming on a separate, pricier tier.
Ease of use: Surfshark’s apps are built for general users. TorGuard’s interface is the recurring complaint in reviews, powerful but not friendly on first use.
Obfuscation: both offer it. Surfshark has Camouflage and NoBorders modes, and TorGuard’s stealth modes are reported to work on blocking networks. Our obfuscation guide covers the approach.
What Each One Lacks
Surfshark lacks port forwarding and a printed renewal. It also lacks a fixed dedicated IP in the base plan; one is sold as an add-on in 20 locations. And its Dutch base sits inside the Nine Eyes group, which its audits answer but do not remove.
TorGuard lacks an audit, open apps and US torrenting. It also lacks a simple price, since the streaming tier and dedicated IPs cost extra. Its strengths are real, but they come with all three gaps attached.
Which One
Surfshark for a household, for streaming, for torrenting from the United States, and for anyone who wants audited privacy at a low long-term price.
TorGuard if port forwarding or dedicated IPs are the point, you connect from outside the United States, and you accept an unaudited provider. NordVPN against TorGuard and TorGuard against PIA set it against two more rivals.
How We Research
Surfshark’s first-term price comes from its pricing page, read on 25 September 2026, and its reported renewal from Security.org and VPNOverview. Our Surfshark review and tables supplied its audits, devices and P2P policy. TorGuard’s settlement, pricing range and ownership come from our TorGuard review, which draws on TorrentFreak, BleepingComputer, Techdirt and others named there. We do not run our own tests. Our full approach lives on the About Us page.
Surfshark vs TorGuard FAQ
For streaming, households and audited privacy, yes. Surfshark rates 4.6 against TorGuard’s 3.1 in our reviews. TorGuard’s advantages are port forwarding and dedicated IPs for technical users.
Yes. Surfshark allows P2P on every server, including in the United States. It does not offer port forwarding, which matters mainly for seeding.
No. Since a March 2022 settlement with film studios, TorGuard blocks BitTorrent on its US servers. Servers elsewhere allow it, with port forwarding included.
Surfshark on its long plan: $67.23 for 27 months, then a reported $79 a year. TorGuard’s Standard plan is reported at $4.27 to $10.99 a month, with streaming on a higher tier.
No, not in more than a decade. Surfshark has two Deloitte no-logs assurance reports, from 2023 and 2025.
The Verdict
Surfshark is the better choice for nearly everyone. It torrents in the United States, streams well, covers unlimited devices and has audits behind its privacy policy, at a low price on its long plan.
TorGuard’s case is narrower: port forwarding and dedicated IPs for users outside the United States who know they need them, and who accept the missing audit.