We will be doing maintenance work on Vivaldi Translate on the 11th of May starting at 03:00 (UTC) (see the time in your time zone).
Some downtime and service disruptions may be experienced.
Thanks in advance for your patience.
How about output of privacytests.org?
-
I found the page https://privacytests.org as a recommendation from Naomi Brockwell.
Vivaldi scores very poorly among numerous browsers in terms of privacy. Is this page not up to date? What do you think?Could it be that the site forgot refer to activated trackers and ad blockers?
Update: I wrote a mail with this question to their support.
-
-
@olli Thanks for your link. I am beginning to understand.
-
@olli Today I received a reply from the operator of privacytests.org:
Hi Rainer,
I currently test all browsers with default settings. Unfortunately
Vivaldi has its ad blocker and tracker blocker disabled by default. If
it enables them by default, it will pass most of the tracker content
blocking tests.Best regards,
Arthur -
Forgive me, but quite ridiculous the answer.
-
-
@privacytests Thank you for your detailled answer in your linked artikel.
Now I have a guess why the internal blockers are not enabled by default:
Because it is important for the sponsors. They would withdraw from the business, which would make Vivaldi's development more difficult. Is that so?
If yes, I can live with the default being "Don't block" because- I use extensions like uBlock Origin and Privacy Badger anyway, and
- the option to enable the blockers is displayed clearly enough during the initial installation.
-
@barbudo2005 said in How about output of privacytests.org?:
Forgive me, but quite ridiculous the answer.
Really? I don't think so. His rules are very resonable to me.
However, it is also a weakness of such tests that internal blockers are not taken into account if they are not activated by default.
A solution might be that there is an extra column for Vivaldi for the activated version. -
@Dancer18 said in How about output of privacytests.org?:
Really? I don't think so. His rules are very resonable to me.
I agree. Most tests of this sort use default settings. You can't expect them to hunt though every browser figuring out how to make it as private (or secure) as possible.
When I first saw that site, I wasn't upset by the Vivaldi results at all.
-
@wintercoast said in How about output of privacytests.org?:
You can't expect them to hunt though every browser figuring out how to make it as private (or secure) as possible
Correct.
-
@wintercoast said in How about output of privacytests.org?:
Most tests of this sort use default settings.
Most tests of this (sort ) Do use default settings.
If you read his documentation you will see he sets all browsers to default settings.The Electronic Frontier Foundation's Cover your Tracks site is more reliable in my opinion. Fairer to those who know how to secure their browsers.
They also give simple tips (and complex ones too) to users on how secure browsers as well as keep safe on the internet. -
The tracker blocker is part of the welcome onboarding flow, so most users will have the chance to easily decide if they want to turn it on or not.
-
Personally I set my Vivaldi the way I think it should be set up and my OS then go to Cover your Tracks to verify settings.
Vivaldi has always given positive results whereas Privacytests always gives negative results as it resets all settings to Default (no matter what I've done to secure it).It's like me going to to your house to give it a security audit but before I do the audit I unlock all locked items, open all doors and windows. Then I tell you your house is unscure and needs total security upgrade.
I don't feel it's a fair comparison.
That's my 5 cents worth anyway. -
@greybeard Thanks for the link to Cover your Tracks. Result (with uBO and Privacy Badger extensions):
Our tests indicate that you have strong protection against Web tracking.
IS YOUR BROWSER:
Blocking tracking ads? Yes
Blocking invisible trackers? Yes
Protecting you from fingerprinting? Your browser has a unique fingerprintProtecting from fingerprinting doesn't work here.
-
@Dancer18 said in How about output of privacytests.org?:
@greybeard Thanks for the link to Cover your Tracks. Result (with uBO and Privacy Badger extensions):
Our tests indicate that you have strong protection against Web tracking.
IS YOUR BROWSER:
Blocking tracking ads? Yes
Blocking invisible trackers? Yes
Protecting you from fingerprinting? Your browser has a unique fingerprintProtecting from fingerprinting doesn't work here.
https://forum.vivaldi.net/post/806700
https://forum.vivaldi.net/post/815979 -
i guess i need to hijack this post to answer in the thread that was instantly moved to archive as it was said i should search other posts ( why not merge them then
)
https://forum.vivaldi.net/topic/107779/can-vivaldi-try-and-improve-the-scores-here?_=1745414862405So yeah........
https://vivaldi.com/security/common-questions/#privacytests
You can also search the forum to see several other threads mentioning the site.Ye its sad to see vivaldis stance on this , cause leaking less data = better privacy its simple as that , idk how as an example Brave on "Standard protection" breaks more websites than lets say chrome , edge , or vivaldi.
i know that Librewolf , and mullvad browser and similiar ones break more stuff but they are also Firefox based which lets be real most of the web doesnt optimize for anymore.
i mean on aggressive blocking yeah you might find from time to time a broken website but this test is done i believe on standard settings.
but whatever.
Just sad to see that stance specially if you consider that most of the tests arent "tracker" related and more "what does my brower leak" related.
-
@Evono If you think Brave is so private, read:
https://sizeof.cat/post/web-browser-telemetry-2025-edition/#brave vs. https://sizeof.cat/post/web-browser-telemetry-2025-edition/#vivaldi -
@DoctorG i honestly do my own Research , with wireshark and other network tools , + website checks what my browser leaks.
Edit*
atleast also a few of the connections of brave there arent by standard on.and all can be kinda disabled entirely.
Edit2
this also still doesnt verify at any point the leaked data of browser by visiting websites.
thats merely connections you pointed at.
-
@Evono And which data is "leaked" by Vivaldi whereas Brave does not?
Please tell me, i am interested, as you did some profund investigative work with Wireshark.. -
@DoctorG i mean wireshark again just talks about network related data , i talk about data which browsers leak , which can be easily tested by tracking test websites , id websites , fingerprint websites , or tests which https://privacytests.org/ offers , but theres many websites which show which data leaks from the browser
Like here
Left is Brave standard Tracker blocker standard settings Fresh install
Right Side is Vivaldi , Fresh install , Tracker blocker Enabled
https://i.imgur.com/Cu4k3sC.pngmind you it says unique fingerprint for brave but it changes fingerprint each browser restart entirely.
Here on this website braves side is basicly empty ,
on vivaldis i needed to scroll out
https://i.imgur.com/1Zvqm8Z.pngBasicly check this
https://privacytests.org/Like alone that WebRTC is enabled by default is a huge privacy nightmare for browsers because webRTC can circumvent proxys / vpns by leaking the local IP if you want something network related , and no i never found a website in the last 8 years which was broken with disabled web RTC.
