Proton Browser Privacy Ranking: Why Brave Beats LibreWolf, Firefox and Zen

Several of the retellings circulating online also contain errors. This piece uses Proton's own table as the reference.

The scoreboard, as Proton published it​

Some coverage says Firefox and Zen tied at 21. Proton's table puts Zen at 22, tied with LibreWolf for second place, and Firefox at 21. The same coverage gives Vivaldi 5/10 on fingerprinting. Proton's table says 2/10. Proton's own category write-up contradicts its table on this point, because it lists Vivaldi at 5/10 and also calls it the lowest scorer. The table's total of 14/30 only works with the 2.

Round one: how independent is each browser from Google?​

Proton's reasoning here is about engines and money. Brave uses Chromium. It adds its own privacy protections but still relies on technology developed within Google's browser ecosystem. Vivaldi gets the same 4/10 for the same reason.

Firefox lands in the middle. Its Gecko engine gives it technical independence from Chromium. Mozilla has historically received substantial revenue from Google for default search placement, which Proton calls a financial dependency.

LibreWolf and Zen share the category win at 9/10. LibreWolf is built on Firefox and removes telemetry. Zen also builds on Firefox and reduces telemetry.

Proton doesn't publish a formula showing how engine lineage, funding and telemetry are weighted. The scores are a judgment call, and it's fair to read them that way.

Round two: fingerprinting protection​

Fingerprinting is the category that carried Brave. Proton credits Brave's 10/10 to fingerprint randomization, which changes certain browser characteristics. The aim is to make it harder to link your activity across visits.

Some coverage describes this as making tracking "practically impossible", but Proton doesn't go that far. Proton says fingerprinting protection "doesn't guarantee anonymity". It also says results depend on browser version and test conditions. One outlet's name for Brave's technique ("fingling") doesn't appear in Proton's write-up, which just says randomization.

Proton's fingerprinting scores for the others:

• LibreWolf: 8/10, based on its privacy-focused defaults.
• Firefox: 5/10. Proton notes Mozilla keeps developing these protections, so results can change between versions.
• Zen: 5/10, with a caveat that it may lag Firefox's newest protections.
• Vivaldi: 2/10 in the table.

Proton also points readers to the EFF's Cover Your Tracks tool as a starting point. It adds that no single test captures every fingerprinting technique.

Round three: everyday usability​

Firefox and Brave tie at 9/10. Proton describes Brave as a relatively easy switch for Chrome users because of its familiar interface, Chromium compatibility and built-in privacy features. Firefox handles most everyday tasks well, though some Chrome-optimized sites can behave differently.

Vivaldi and Zen each get 8/10. Vivaldi offers extensive customization, and its range of settings takes time to learn. Zen's sidebar tabs and Spaces are a distinctive way to organize browsing, but Proton says a younger project can have rough edges.

LibreWolf scores 5/10, and Proton's stated reason is narrow. Its defaults can clear browsing data when you close the browser, which may mean logging into websites again. Some settings can be adjusted, but Proton says that involves trade-offs.

One retelling says LibreWolf's strictness makes YouTube and other multimedia sites "frequently break". That claim isn't in Proton's comparison, so don't treat it as a finding from this test.

What the ranking tells you, and what it doesn't​

The arithmetic matters here. Brave wins because a 10 in fingerprinting and a 9 in usability outweigh a weak 4 on Google independence. If you care mostly about independence from Google, LibreWolf and Zen each score 9/10, and Brave's total drops below what a different weighting would give. Equal weights are a design choice, not a law of nature.

Some limits to keep in mind:

• Proton is not a neutral lab. It's a privacy-focused company with its own interests. Its other browser guides note, for example, built-in Proton VPN support in Vivaldi. The comparison doesn't promote a Proton product, but readers should still see it as one company's rubric.
• The method isn't reproducible. Proton's published text doesn't state browser versions, operating systems, device configurations or a test protocol. "Rigorous" is the headline writer's word, not something the evidence supports.
• It says nothing about security in the patching sense. There's no comparison of vulnerability history, update speed or sandboxing. For Windows users, those matter as much as tracker blocking.
• Other roundups differ. One search-result roundup (Cybernews) also names Brave and LibreWolf as the best for most people. That's a loose corroboration of the top two, not an independent replication of Proton's scores.

Practical takeaways for Windows users​

Proton's own recommendations are simple:

1. Brave for the best overall balance of fingerprinting protection and a familiar browsing experience.
2. LibreWolf if privacy comes first and you can live with extra friction.
3. Firefox for everyday flexibility, with Zen as a Firefox-based option with a different interface.
4. Vivaldi if customization is your priority.

Proton's closing advice is the most useful line in the piece: there is no universal winner for every person or threat model. It says to pick what fits your priorities, keep the browser updated and test its protections instead of trusting reputation. In practice, that means running a fingerprinting test in your own browser. Check your update channel, and see whether the privacy defaults you rely on survive a restart.

Microsoft Edge isn't part of Proton's lineup, so this comparison says nothing about how the default Windows browser stacks up.