Private Internet Access is usually shortened to PIA.
Proton VPN and PIA cover much of the same ordinary consumer VPN baseline: current protocols, P2P support, split routing on Windows, and basic port forwarding. None of that decides anything between them.
What actually separates the two is a short list of hard differences, cases where one product does something the other doesn’t, or does it in a meaningfully different way. Whichever of those apply to you is what determines the answer.
The Immediate Verdict
Choose Proton VPN if you specifically require:
- Permanent, no-cost access
- VPN-to-VPN multihop through Secure Core
- Port forwarding as a US-based user
Choose PIA if you specifically require:
- More than 10 simultaneous personal-device connections under one subscription
- An established consumer Dedicated IP
- Deeper current macOS selective routing
Narrow case: PIA has a documented Linux/manual path that combines Dedicated IP and port forwarding, where the selected region allows it. This is a specific, confirmed workflow, not general app or platform support for the combination.
If none of those requirements applies to you, the evidence doesn’t force a universal winner. What’s left is which company’s product structure and account model you’d rather live with, covered later, not skipped.
Quick Comparison
| If you care about… | Better fit | Why | Main trade-off |
|---|---|---|---|
| Permanent free access | Proton VPN | Standing Free plan, no time limit | One connection; paid features excluded |
| More than 10 simultaneous connections | PIA | Unlimited connections and installations under one subscription | Personal-use and anti-resale conditions apply |
| Consumer Dedicated IP | PIA | Established paid add-on above the base subscription | Base subscription required; exact price and DIP-quantity policy unresolved |
| Port forwarding in the US | Proton VPN | PIA excludes US users from port forwarding entirely | Proton’s forwarding is dynamic and server-assigned, not a fixed port |
| Port forwarding generally | Conditional | Both support it, under different conditions | Region coverage and reconnect behavior differ |
| macOS split tunneling | PIA | Mature app/IP bypass through Apple’s Network Extension architecture | Proton’s macOS version is paid but experimental and exclusion-only |
| VPN-to-VPN multihop | Proton VPN | Secure Core routes traffic VPN-to-VPN | Paid feature; independent verification of the entry layer is evidence-bounded |
| Linux / ARM64 | Conditional | Both capable; PIA currently ships ARM64 | Full advanced-feature parity on ARM64 is unresolved for both |
| Restrictive-network mechanisms | Conditional | Proton uses Stealth; PIA uses Shadowsocks and SOCKS5 | No aligned field evidence on effectiveness for either |
| Assurance evidence | Conditional | Proton has a recurring audit sequence; PIA has one detailed current report | Neither can be ranked by count |
Traditional Metrics, Briefly
Before the material that actually decides anything, a quick orientation.
Price. Proton’s monthly plan runs $9.99, with annual and 24-month routes priced differently and a common $83.88 annual renewal on standard routes. PIA’s monthly plan is currently $11.95, with a $39.95 first-year route and a 3-year-plus-3-month offer shown at a $1.33/month equivalent; a $79 renewal has been observed on the 3-year route. PIA’s own materials currently show a renewal-price inconsistency, and the exact debit and tax treatment on its longest term isn’t confirmed. Neither provider is treated as cheaper here, pricing isn’t decisive anywhere in this comparison.
Free, trial, refund. Proton has a standing Free plan. No standing PIA Free plan was established in the current evidence; its trial and refund terms are separate and shouldn’t be read as a free tier.
Simultaneous connections. Proton allows 10 per paid individual account. PIA allows unlimited.
P2P. Supported on both.
Protocols. Current standard protocols are supported on both.
Platforms. Both cover Windows, macOS, Linux, Android, iOS, and browser extensions.
Server footprint. Not a material differentiator in the evidence reviewed.
Performance and streaming. Evidence exists for both, but not from aligned, comparable testing. No speed or streaming winner is claimed here.
Permanent Free Access
Proton VPN has a standing Free plan. It isn’t a trial and it doesn’t expire. It comes with one connection and excludes paid features, but it costs nothing for as long as you use it.
No equivalent was established for PIA. It has trial and refund options, but nothing that functions as a permanent, no-cost tier.
If free access matters to you and one connection is enough, this settles the choice by itself. If it doesn’t matter, the rest of the comparison doesn’t hinge on it.
More Than 10 Simultaneous Connections
Proton’s paid individual plan covers 10 simultaneous connections. Beyond that, Proton’s Duo and Family products exist, but they’re separate account structures, not an extension of the same subscription.
PIA allows unlimited simultaneous connections and installations under one subscription, subject to personal-use and anti-resale conditions. No hidden numerical cap was established.
If you need more than 10 devices connected at once under a single plan, PIA is the fit. It’s worth being precise here: unlimited connections describes device scale, not a household or multi-person entitlement. Proton’s Duo and Family plans are the actual comparison point for that different need.
Consumer Dedicated IP
PIA sells a Dedicated IP as a paid add-on on top of the base subscription. It’s activated through a client-held token, fixed for the length of the entitlement, and doesn’t renew to the same address once that entitlement expires. The exact current add-on price isn’t confirmed.
The token architecture is worth a brief note: PIA’s Dedicated IP token is held client-side, and the audited system is designed to prevent server-side association between the token and a specific account within its scope. That’s a real, evidenced design choice, but it’s not the same as saying the IP is anonymous or impossible to correlate.
No ordinary consumer Proton VPN Plus Dedicated IP was established in the current evidence. Proton does offer dedicated infrastructure through its Business and Workspace products, but that’s a separate product layer for a different kind of customer, not a consumer-tier comparator.
If a consumer Dedicated IP is something you specifically need, PIA is the established consumer option in this comparison.
Port Forwarding: Not the Same Conditions
Both providers support port forwarding, and on paper that looks like a tie. It isn’t, once you look at how each one actually works.
Proton’s is paid, uses NAT-PMP, and is dynamic, the port is server-assigned and depends on connecting to a P2P-supporting server. It’s available on Windows, macOS, and Linux.
PIA’s is also paid, but the port is provider-assigned rather than negotiated, and PIA excludes US-based users from port forwarding entirely. Workflow differs between app and manual setups, a reconnect can change your assigned port, and the complete list of eligible regions isn’t fully confirmed.
That US exclusion is the one clean, decisive fact here: for a US-based reader who requires port forwarding, Proton resolves this comparison, because PIA excludes US users from the feature. Outside that specific case, neither provider’s forwarding is simply better, the conditions differ enough that a general winner would misrepresent the evidence.
If You Need Dedicated IP and Port Forwarding Together
This is a narrower case, but worth flagging on its own. PIA has a documented path (on Linux, using a manual workflow) where a Dedicated IP and port forwarding work together, in regions where both are available. Broader compatibility across other platforms, apps, and locations hasn’t been established.
No ordinary consumer Proton VPN Plus Dedicated IP was established in the current evidence to provide an equivalent combination.
If you need both capabilities at once, the interaction between them matters more than either one alone — and right now, that interaction is only confirmed on one specific setup.
macOS: The Same Words, a Different Depth
This is a case where the same feature name hides a real gap.
PIA’s macOS split tunneling is built on Apple’s Network Extension architecture, and it supports both an app-based Bypass/Only VPN mode and IP or subnet-level bypass. It’s a mature, current implementation.
Proton’s macOS split tunneling is paid, but it’s still experimental. It’s exclusion-only, limited by WebKit, and restricted to WireGuard or Stealth. Two providers can both technically say “we support split tunneling on macOS,” and the actual capability behind that sentence is not remotely equivalent.
If you specifically need deeper macOS routing control (bypassing by app and by IP or subnet, not just excluding apps) PIA is the fit on this platform.
Windows
Windows is a shorter story. Proton offers mature include/exclude routing by app and IP. PIA offers Bypass/Only VPN modes, IP and subnet bypass, inverse routing, and DNS controls. Both are materially capable; the implementations simply differ.
Linux and ARM64
Proton’s Linux offering includes a GUI, an official CLI, manual configuration, Secure Core, split tunneling, and port forwarding, with some package and ARM constraints. PIA’s includes a GUI, its piactl command-line tool, manual scripting support, split tunneling, port forwarding, and its Multi-Hop/proxy tooling. It’s worth being precise about piactl: it controls the installed PIA desktop service rather than functioning as a fully independent standalone CLI VPN implementation the way Proton’s official CLI does.
PIA currently ships an ARM64 build; its older ARMHF build is no longer current. Full parity of advanced features on ARM64 isn’t confirmed for either provider, so no categorical Linux winner is supported by the evidence here.
Secure Core and PIA Multi-Hop Are Not the Same Thing
Both providers use the word “multihop,” and it’s tempting to read that as one more tie. It isn’t.
Proton’s Secure Core is a paid feature that routes your traffic VPN-to-VPN, through more than one Proton server in sequence, rather than through a proxy layer.
PIA’s Multi-Hop routes traffic through a proxy and then a single VPN server. That proxy stage runs on Shadowsocks or SOCKS5, not a second VPN hop. It is not a double-VPN architecture, whatever the name suggests.
This branch resolves cleanly, but only for a specific reader: if your threat model specifically calls for VPN-to-VPN routing rather than proxy-assisted routing, Secure Core is what you’re actually asking for, and PIA’s Multi-Hop doesn’t provide it. If your threat model doesn’t distinguish between the two, this isn’t a reason to prefer one provider over the other: it says nothing about which company is more private or more secure in general.
Restrictive Networks
A related but separate question is what each provider offers for getting around network restrictions. Proton uses its own Stealth tunnel-obfuscation architecture. PIA offers Shadowsocks, an encrypting, obfuscating proxy, and SOCKS5, a more basic proxy-routing tool used within its Multi-Hop setup. These are meaningfully different mechanisms (Shadowsocks and SOCKS5 shouldn’t be treated as interchangeable) but there’s no aligned, real-world evidence comparing how well any of them perform against active network restrictions. This comes down to which architecture better matches the reader’s specific requirement, not a proven winner.
Assurance, Infrastructure, and Account Architecture
Once the hard requirement branches are settled, what’s left is real, but it’s architecture and evidence-shape material rather than a capability gap.
Assurance. Proton has gone through a recurring sequence of assessments from Securitum, with a boundary on what the most current artifacts cover. PIA has a 2025 limited-assurance report from Deloitte, based on direct inspection, dated as of 31 October 2025, using some sample-based procedures. These are two different shapes of evidence (one recurring over time, one detailed and current at a single point) and neither converts cleanly into “stronger audits.” Comparing them by count would misrepresent what each one demonstrates.
Infrastructure. Proton relies on full-disk encryption and a hybrid, shared-responsibility hosting model across ordinary third-party data centers, with additional provider-described control claims specific to Secure Core. PIA has evidence for audited ephemeral containers, RAM disks, full-disk-encrypted hosts, and disabled production logging, alongside its own description of owned, colocated hardware. How data persists on a server is a separate question from who physically controls the hardware it runs on. PIA’s hardware-ownership and rack-access claims remain provider-described, while Proton Secure Core’s physical and administrative control claims also remain independently bounded. There’s no infrastructure winner here.
Account and ecosystem. Proton operates a broader account that can extend across mail, drive, calendar, and password products. PIA’s account stays narrower and VPN-focused, with its Dedicated IP token kept as a separate, isolated layer. Neither structure is inherently more private: a bigger account ecosystem doesn’t automatically mean a bigger risk surface, and a narrower one doesn’t automatically mean better privacy. This is architecture, not a verdict.
Between them, these differences describe the same underlying pattern: Proton spreads access across a Free plan, a paid VPN tier, bundles, and multi-user products, while PIA keeps its paid VPN comparatively flatter, builds in unlimited connections, and sells a consumer Dedicated IP separately on top. Neither structure is objectively better, they simply ask something different of the reader.
Conclusion
Choose Proton VPN if:
- Permanent, free access is required
- VPN-to-VPN multihop is required
- Port forwarding is required and you’re based in the US
Choose PIA if:
- More than 10 simultaneous connections are required
- An established consumer Dedicated IP is required
- Deeper, current macOS selective routing is required
Narrow case: if you specifically need a Dedicated IP and port forwarding working together, PIA has a documented route on Linux, in regions where both are available.
If none of those requirements describes you, the evidence doesn’t hand you a forced answer. What’s left is a choice between Proton’s broader, tiered, multi-service account and PIA’s flatter, VPN-focused subscription with an isolated Dedicated IP add-on, a genuine product and account preference, not a gap in the research.
The STACK View
A shared feature label is not evidence of a shared architecture.
“Multihop” describes VPN-to-VPN routing at Proton and proxy-to-VPN routing at PIA, two different mechanisms wearing the same name. “Split tunneling” describes a mature, Network Extension-based implementation on PIA’s macOS app and a paid, experimental, exclusion-only implementation on Proton’s. “Unlimited devices” describes a device-scale entitlement at PIA, not a household or multi-user identity structure like Proton’s separate Duo and Family plans.
In each case, what the label actually meant mattered more than whether the label was present. That’s a useful habit for reading any VPN comparison, not just this one: two providers claiming the same feature are worth checking, not assuming.
FAQs
Is Proton VPN better than PIA? Neither is better across the board. Proton is the fit for permanent free access, VPN-to-VPN multihop, and US-based port forwarding. PIA is the fit for more than 10 simultaneous connections, an established consumer Dedicated IP, and deeper macOS routing. Outside those specific needs, it’s a preference between two different product structures.
Does Proton VPN or PIA have a free plan? Proton has a standing Free plan with one connection and no time limit. No standing PIA Free plan was established in the current evidence.
Which supports more devices? PIA allows unlimited simultaneous connections under one subscription. Proton’s paid plan covers 10, with Duo and Family available as separate account structures beyond that.
Does PIA support port forwarding in the US? No. PIA excludes US-based users from port forwarding entirely. Proton has documented forwarding paths without that exclusion.
Which has a Dedicated IP? PIA is the established consumer Dedicated IP option in this comparison, sold as a paid add-on. No equivalent was established for Proton VPN Plus at its ordinary consumer tier; its dedicated infrastructure sits in its separate Business and Workspace products.
Which is better on macOS? PIA, for readers who need real split-tunneling depth, its implementation supports app and IP/subnet bypass through Apple’s Network Extension architecture. Proton’s macOS split tunneling is paid but still experimental and exclusion-only.
Is PIA Multi-Hop the same as Proton Secure Core? No. Secure Core routes traffic VPN-to-VPN. PIA Multi-Hop routes through a Shadowsocks or SOCKS5 proxy and then a single VPN server. They share a category name and not much else.
handful of hard divergences.
Continue Your Research
If you’re still weighing Proton VPN, these investigations go deeper into the parts this comparison only touches on:
- Proton VPN Review: our full assessment of the product, its strengths, limitations, platforms and overall fit.
- Proton VPN Features: a closer look at what Proton actually includes, where each feature works and which capabilities depend on your plan or platform.
- Is Proton VPN Private?: we examine the logging architecture, account data, legal exposure and independent evidence behind Proton’s privacy claims.
- Is Proton VPN Safe?: a deeper investigation into Proton’s security architecture, infrastructure, audits and unresolved trust boundaries.
- Who Owns Proton VPN?: who operates and controls Proton VPN, how Fondation Proton fits in, and what the public record does and does not establish.
- Proton VPN Alternatives: the better place to go if something in this comparison has already ruled Proton out for you.