In 2024, the average data breach cost reached $4.88 million globally, according to IBM’s Cost of a Data Breach Report. At the same time, CISA and privacy researchers continue warning that ordinary account data—email addresses, billing details, and device identifiers—can become long-term tracking assets even when passwords stay secure.
That is the real problem for privacy-focused users: many VPNs promise anonymous browsing, but the moment signup requires your full name, personal email, or card details, a trail already exists. If your goal is minimizing the personal information tied to your VPN account, the shortlist gets very small very quickly.
Key Takeaways: Mullvad and IVPN are two of the few mainstream VPN providers built around low-data signup models. Mullvad minimizes identity exposure with numbered accounts and optional cash payments, while IVPN supports email-optional registration and privacy-friendly payments. The better choice depends on how strictly you want to avoid personal information, how much usability you need, and whether account simplicity or device flexibility matters more.
This comparison takes a problem-solution approach. First, define the privacy problem clearly. Then rank the practical fixes that matter most when choosing between Mullvad VPN and IVPN for anonymous browsing without personal information required.
Quick Verdict
If the main problem is avoiding personal data during signup, Mullvad is usually the stronger answer. Its account-number system is still one of the cleanest privacy models in the commercial VPN market.
If the problem is balancing anonymous signup with a slightly more conventional account workflow, IVPN is highly competitive. It keeps data collection low, supports privacy-focused payments, and has a strong reputation among security reviewers such as PCMag and independent privacy researchers.
| Feature | Mullvad VPN | IVPN |
|---|---|---|
| Account creation | Random account number, no email required | Account ID system, email optional |
| Anonymous payment options | Cash, crypto, card, PayPal, vouchers in some regions | Cash, Monero, Bitcoin, card, PayPal |
| Default protocol support | WireGuard, OpenVPN | WireGuard, OpenVPN |
| Encryption | AES-256-GCM / ChaCha20 depending on protocol | AES-256-GCM / ChaCha20 depending on protocol |
| Server footprint | ~690+ servers in 45+ countries | ~140+ servers in 35+ countries |
| Device limit | 5 devices | 2 devices on Standard, 7 on Pro |
| Independent audits | Yes, multiple app/infrastructure audits | Yes, no-logs and app audits |
The Problem: “Anonymous Browsing” Often Starts With a Privacy Leak
When I first tried this, I was skeptical. But after digging into the actual numbers, my perspective shifted.
People usually think anonymous browsing starts when the VPN tunnel turns on. In practice, it starts earlier—at account creation, payment, and app telemetry. If a provider stores an email address, billing profile, support metadata, and recurring identifiers, your browsing session may be encrypted, but your service relationship is not anonymous.
AV-TEST, CISA guidance, and multiple privacy audits all point toward the same principle: data minimization matters. The less personal information collected at the start, the less there is to expose later through breach, legal request, misconfiguration, or third-party processor leakage.
For this specific problem, there are four solutions that matter most. Ranked by effectiveness, they reveal where Mullvad and IVPN differ.
Solution 1: Choose the VPN With the Least Personal Data Required
Why it ranks first: the strongest privacy defense is not giving the provider identifiable data in the first place.
What it is: a signup system that does not require your real name, personal email, phone number, or other persistent identifiers.
Why it works: if the provider never collects personal account details, there is less risk from breaches, subpoenas, tracking, or support-channel exposure.
Mullvad’s approach
Mullvad’s model is unusually strict. Users generate a random 16-digit account number instead of creating a traditional username-and-password profile. No email address is required to open the account, which sharply reduces the amount of identity-linked data in the system.
This is one reason Mullvad is frequently cited in privacy discussions and security media coverage. Its low-data account model is not just a marketing layer; it is part of the product design.
IVPN’s approach
IVPN also keeps data collection low. It uses an account ID system and does not force a conventional identity-heavy registration flow. Email is optional, which is better than the standard VPN industry pattern.
That said, Mullvad still has the edge for pure anonymity because its account-number workflow feels more aggressively designed around data minimization from the first step.
How to implement this solution: if your priority is zero personal information at signup, choose Mullvad first. If you want nearly the same privacy philosophy with slightly more standard account management, IVPN remains a very strong option.
I’d pay close attention to this section.
Solution 2: Use a Payment Method That Does Not Expose Your Identity
Why it ranks second: anonymous signup loses much of its value if payment immediately links the account back to you.
What it is: using privacy-preserving payment methods such as cash or privacy-focused cryptocurrency instead of a personal credit card.
Why it works: payment processors often retain names, billing addresses, partial card details, and transaction metadata. That can create a direct identity bridge even if the VPN itself stores little.
Pricing comparison
| Plan | Mullvad VPN | IVPN |
|---|---|---|
| Monthly price | €5 flat rate | Standard: $6/month; Pro: $10/month |
| Annual discounting | No long-term discount model | Discounts on longer plans |
| Cash payment | Yes | Yes |
| Crypto options | Yes | Yes, including Monero |
| Card/PayPal | Yes | Yes |
Mullvad’s flat-rate pricing is simple: one package, one price, no upsell complexity. For privacy-conscious buyers, simplicity matters because it reduces the temptation to choose a longer billing relationship tied to identifiable payment profiles.
IVPN offers more plan variety, including Standard and Pro. Pro can be attractive if you want more device slots and advanced features, but the added plan structure makes it feel slightly less minimalistic than Mullvad.
How to implement this solution: choose cash if your threat model is strict and mailing payment is practical. If not, use a privacy-focused cryptocurrency option. Avoid linking a personally identifying recurring payment method unless convenience matters more than anonymity.
Solution 3: Prefer the Service With the Stronger Privacy Architecture
Why it ranks third: low-data signup helps, but anonymous browsing also depends on what the service logs, how apps are built, and whether the provider has been independently audited.
What it is: reviewing protocol support, audits, logging claims, tracker resistance, and infrastructure transparency.
Why it works: a privacy-friendly account model is not enough if the app still leaks data through weak defaults or poor implementation.
Both Mullvad and IVPN perform well here. Each supports WireGuard and OpenVPN, the two protocols most consistently recommended in security evaluations. WireGuard typically uses ChaCha20-based cryptography, while OpenVPN deployments commonly rely on AES-256-GCM.
Both providers also emphasize no-logs positioning and have undergone independent security audits. That matters. CISA and broader cybersecurity best practices consistently favor verifiable controls over vague marketing promises.
Speed and network comparison
| Metric | Mullvad VPN | IVPN |
|---|---|---|
| Estimated server count | ~690+ | ~140+ |
| Country coverage | 45+ countries | 35+ countries |
| Typical WireGuard throughput reported by reviewers | Often 700-850 Mbps on high-speed test lines | Often 500-800 Mbps on high-speed test lines |
| Multihop option | Limited custom setups, not main consumer focus | Yes, stronger emphasis in Pro tier |
Those speed figures vary by location, ISP, hardware, and test methodology. Still, third-party reviewers such as PCMag and specialist VPN publications regularly place both services in the high-performing privacy tier rather than the bargain-performance tier.
How to implement this solution: choose Mullvad if you want broader server availability and straightforward privacy engineering. Choose IVPN if multihop and advanced routing flexibility matter more to your browsing setup.
Solution 4: Match the VPN to Your Anonymous Browsing Use Case
Why it ranks fourth: the “best” anonymous VPN depends on how you browse, not just how you pay.
What it is: picking a provider based on device count, travel needs, browser threat model, and usability friction.
Why it works: privacy tools fail when users stop using them. The right choice is the one you can stick with consistently.
Mullvad pros and cons
- Pros: no email required, numbered account model, flat pricing, strong audit history, larger server footprint, solid WireGuard support
- Cons: fewer plan options, only 5 devices, less feature layering for users who want extras like polished multihop workflows
IVPN pros and cons
- Pros: email optional, privacy-respecting reputation, flexible plans, strong multihop options, up to 7 devices on Pro, transparent privacy stance
- Cons: smaller network, higher Pro pricing, slightly less radical anonymity model than Mullvad at account creation
Which One Should You Pick?
Pick Mullvad if: your top priority is giving the provider as little personal information as possible. It is the cleaner fit for journalists, activists, threat-model-conscious travelers, and users who want the shortest path from “no personal details” to “protected connection.”
Pick IVPN if: you want strong anonymity protections but also value more configurable features and better device flexibility. It suits privacy-focused professionals and advanced users who still want a polished, practical daily VPN.
For most anonymous browsing scenarios: Mullvad wins narrowly on privacy minimalism. IVPN wins some points on flexibility.
Quick-Reference Summary Table
| Problem | Best Fix | Mullvad | IVPN |
|---|---|---|---|
| Avoid giving personal info at signup | Use no-email account model | Excellent | Very good |
| Avoid identity-linked payments | Use cash or privacy crypto | Excellent | Excellent |
| Need broader server choice | Choose larger network | Better | Good |
| Need advanced routing flexibility | Use multihop-friendly plan | Good | Better |
| Want simplest privacy-first option | Minimize account complexity | Best fit | Strong alternative |
You May Also Like
- How VPN Split Tunneling Protects Banking Apps on Public Wi-Fi
- ExpressVPN Lightway vs NordLynx: Speed Showdown
- 1Password vs Bitwarden: Zero-Knowledge Showdown
FAQ
Is Mullvad more anonymous than IVPN?
In most signup scenarios, yes. Mullvad’s numbered-account model with no email requirement is one of the most privacy-minimizing consumer VPN approaches currently available.
Can I use either VPN without giving my real email?
Yes. Mullvad does not require email for account creation, and IVPN allows email-optional usage. Always verify the latest onboarding flow on the provider’s official site before subscribing.
Which is better for speed: Mullvad or IVPN?
Both are generally fast with WireGuard. Mullvad often benefits from a larger server footprint, while IVPN remains competitive, especially for users who prioritize stable privacy features over maximum network size.
Does anonymous signup make browsing fully anonymous?
No. A VPN reduces exposure, but full anonymity also depends on browser fingerprinting, cookies, account logins, DNS handling, endpoint security, and payment metadata. A VPN is one layer, not the entire solution.
Final Assessment
The core problem is simple: most VPNs ask for more personal information than privacy-conscious users should comfortably provide. Mullvad and IVPN stand out because both try to solve that problem at the account-design level, not just in ad copy.
Mullvad is the more privacy-minimal choice for anonymous browsing without personal information required. IVPN is the more flexible runner-up for users who want excellent privacy without going quite as far into stripped-down anonymity-first design.
Sources referenced: IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report, CISA privacy and cybersecurity guidance, AV-TEST security testing methodologies, PCMag VPN comparative reporting, and official provider documentation for pricing, protocols, and network details.
This is informational content. Always verify current features and pricing on official websites.
📌 You May Also Like
🔍 Explore More Topics
