That last bit could hamper you if you're looking to use a VPN for gaming, but overall speeds were high enough that you should have no problem functionally torrenting via one of their four peer-to-peer servers. And ping times (how long it takes a bit of data to make a round trip from you to your destination and back) were up across the five regions I tested, suggesting some potential latency issues. I noticed some larger-than-normal disparities in upload and download speeds. The time required to connect to a VPN server was longer than some of the other services I've tested. The sticking point on speeds was three-fold, however. Like Surfshark, ProtonVPN pulled off these kinds of speeds with a relatively smaller VPN server fleet than its larger competitors. On speed testing, that puts it well ahead of our last tests for Surfshark and NordVPN (which averaged 27% speed loss and 32% speed loss, respectively). ProtonVPN's base speeds sent it blazing past most of our roster of tested services and into second place behind ExpressVPN, which clocked a speed loss of less than 2% the last time it was tested. In the case of ProtonVPN, I saw only 9.6% speed loss compared to average speeds clocked without a VPN. That's one reason we're more interested in testing the amount of speed lost (which for most VPNs is typically half or more) across both high-speed and slower connection types, and in using tools like to even out the playing field. And with any speed test, results are going to rely on your local infrastructure, with hyperfast internet service yielding higher speed test results. Internet speeds in the US vary widely by state and provider. We ran our speed tests over the course of three days with dynamic IP addresses, using both wireless and Ethernet connections - one location offered slower broadband speeds and the other offered higher speeds via fiber optic internet.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |