VyprVPN has very little in the way of extra features. It does however have some proprietary software/protocols that can make it stand out against the other options on the market. Another outstanding feature is the claim that the VPN owns all of their infrastructures and has no need for 3rd-party companies/DNS servers.
To allow the VPN to only use their DNS servers this feature needs to be enabled in the interface. It does not appear to dramatically affect performance (negatively or positively). However, their anti-censorship VPN protocol ‘Chameleon’ does have a noticeable impact on performance. This protocol uses OpenVPN as its base and aims to allow users in restrictive countries such as China and Turkey to freely browse the internet.
Over several tests using this protocol, download rates saw a dip of 50% while upload rates experienced dips between 10 and 15%. The latency remained relatively the same. With regard to the claim that their infrastructure is entirely their own, under some rather superficial tests, the claim was proven to be mostly true. I do believe VyprVPN uses some third party infrastructure to improve performance and serviceability.
With regard to their usage of virtual servers, VyprVPN has been vaguely open about it several years ago, however, they aren’t open about just how many servers are not physical, and where they are actually located. This may be a point of contention for many users looking to adopt the best possible VPN service.
Looking at performance, the upload rates held up well. On average they saw a dip of less than 30%. The highest dip being 59% (Lisbon, Portugal) and the smallest dip being 11% (Riga, Latvia). The download rates on average saw a decrease of between 60-70%. The largest drop being 80% (Madrid, Spain) and the smallest drop being 25% (Rome, Italy). In terms of latency, it had an average performance with only 3 servers having a latency under 200ms. Wireguard exhibited the best performance out of all of the protocols.
While the VPN exhibits great upload speeds on average, it might not be sufficient for commercial use. It only offers per-app split tunnelling for certain operating systems and does not have any ad-blocking features (although they have stated that they are currently working on ad-blocking features) which is usually a requirement for SMEs looking to invest in a VPN.
In terms of streaming and unblocking geo-restricted websites, the VPN fared very well. Unblocking went smoothly when using the Chameleon protocol but it also worked with the other available options. That being said, the anti-censorship protocol does not work to unblock applications that have been banned in some countries, it only works to unblock websites.
There are no designated servers for streaming/torrenting/gaming, so it is up to the user to choose the server best suited to the application at hand. If the potential user is in a country that heavily restricts internet usage this may be a worthy investment. However, there seems to be no other reason to choose VyprVPN over the many other better performing more feature-rich VPNs on the market.
However, don’t hand the VPN its hat yet as it has lots of other functionalities to offer, starting with streaming.