VPN guides by country
Which providers actually have servers where you need them, counted daily.
18 pages, each built from the same daily collection: the server locations seven providers publish across 155 countries and territories, the money-back windows and jurisdictions they state, and speed we measured ourselves across 14 cities and 46 paired runs.
What that buys you is a count for the specific country you need rather than a server total, and a speed figure with a sample size attached rather than a claim. Where we have not measured something, these pages say so instead of filling the gap.
Countries
- Best VPN for Australia — 7 of 7 providers have servers there
- Best VPN for France — 7 of 7 providers have servers there
- Best VPN for Germany — 7 of 7 providers have servers there
- Best VPN for Hong Kong — 7 of 7 providers have servers there
- Best VPN for India — 6 of 7 providers have servers there
- Best VPN for Indonesia — 7 of 7 providers have servers there
- Best VPN for Japan — 7 of 7 providers have servers there
- Best VPN for Malaysia — 7 of 7 providers have servers there
- Best VPN for Russia — 2 of 7 providers have servers there
- Best VPN for Singapore — 7 of 7 providers have servers there
- Best VPN for South Korea — 6 of 7 providers have servers there
- Best VPN for Taiwan — 5 of 7 providers have servers there
- Best VPN for Thailand — 6 of 7 providers have servers there
- Best VPN for Turkey — 7 of 7 providers have servers there
- Best VPN for United Arab Emirates — 6 of 7 providers have servers there
- Best VPN for United Kingdom — 7 of 7 providers have servers there
- Best VPN for United States — 7 of 7 providers have servers there
- Best VPN for Vietnam — 6 of 7 providers have servers there
Where the numbers come from
Provider coverage is read from each company's own published server list once a day and counted per country — 155 countries and territories, seven providers. Speed is measured by hand rather than by script: 14 cities, 46 paired runs, comparing two services against the same raw line in the same session, with a baseline measurement of the bare line in 11 of those cities.
We only name a faster provider in a city where we have five or more paired runs and a gap of at least 10%. That threshold is met in 4 of the 14. In the other ten we publish the numbers and say the sample is too small.
Every file behind those numbers is published as open data under CC BY 4.0, and the full method — including what the figures do not prove — is on how we test. If you find an error in the data, we would rather have the correction than the link.