I did try to mitigate that slightly by adding a brief overview of all three choices to the top of the page in the PR, so that it’s the first thing readers are presented with, for what it’s worth. That (intentionally) isn’t as strong of an approach as you’re proposing though.
I don’t know what the correct approach is, we can see if anyone else has an opinion on recommendation ordering here.
I feel we should wait for atleast a few releases before mullvad browser is listed on PG . Its just been released 3 days ago and there is lot more to things to test out and bugs to be fixed-
The font fingerprints still work. · Issue #33 · mullvad/mullvad-browser · GitHub ,
Disabling "Always use Private Browsing Mode" doesn't persist cookies for allowed exceptions · Issue #29 · mullvad/mullvad-browser · GitHub ,
no integration to system - Allow easy uninstalling of mullvad browser from windows · Issue #32 · mullvad/mullvad-browser · GitHub .
There is also confusion among users like the above (including me) about the type of “collaboration” they have with the Tor project (mentioned on Mullvads websitem too) . Do they mean that Tor project will be actively involved in maintaining the mullvad browser or its essentially a fork of the tor browser by Mullvads team and maintained by them alone ?
I have a question about Mullvad Browser, is there a difference between installing and configuring the Mullvad extension for Firefox and installing the Mullvad Browser?
I have the impression that Mullvad Browser is useless if you already use Firefox with the extension
If it was maintained by Mullvad we wouldn’t be planning to add it to the site, because Mullvad has no browser development experience.
Mullvad Browser, a browser built by the Tor Project team and distributed by Mullvad.
I don’t think there is, people with no knowledge about browser fingerprinting opening GitHub issues is not a blocker for recommending Mullvad Browser. Tor Browser has existed since 2008, we are familiar with its technologies and release cycles already. Note that some of those issues are feature requests and while some like #29 would be nice to have in the mid/long-term, they don’t impact the privacy functionality of the browser today.
Your impression would be incorrect, the Mullvad extension does not provide any privacy-enhancing functionality, so adding it to Firefox would be useless.
With a VPN, Mullvad Browser creates a crowd to help protect against advanced scripts, and includes the same fingerprinting protections as Tor Browser.
Without a VPN, Mullvad Browser provides the same anti-fingerprinting protections as Arkenfox - fooling naive scripts. While Arkenfox requires a little work and reading to setup, it is much more usable and relaxed with dynamic First Party Isolation and normal mode. Mullvad Browser on the other hand is simple to install and forget (you shouldn’t ever change any settings) but is much less flexible (due to avoiding disk and using Private Browsing mode).
i.e. with a VPN like Mullvad, Mullvad Browser provides much stronger anti-fingerprinting protections than hardened Firefox or Brave would provide. Without one it’s about the same (from an anti-fingerprinting perspective) as browsing with Arkenfox+Firefox.
Yes, I understood a little bit what the Mullvad browser did, but what does the Mullvad extension bring to Firefox?
Basically on the site I understand that it says, if you use any other browser than Firefox, you can install Mullvad browser in addition and if you already use Firefox, the Mullvad extension is enough
Where do you see that? This is simply not true. You can see the list of features it has on this page: Downloads | Mullvad VPN
English is not my mother tongue, maybe I misspoke or made myself understood
I’m not asserting anything, I just wanted to know why the Mullvad extension for Firefox was proposed in the same category as the Mullvad browser that’s all
That isn’t being proposed, that’s why I’m confused. Where are you seeing that proposal?
Very important to note that it is not the same profile as Tor, it’s its own unique profile. It’s also important to note that this is the case with Arkenfox/Brave as well, any anti-fingerprinting measures tend to make you more unique. This is the explainer text we’re proposing for the website if it makes more sense, or if you/anyone has feedback:
Without using a VPN like Mullvad, Mullvad Browser provides the same protections against naive fingerprinting scripts as other hardened browsers like Arkenfox+Firefox or Brave can provide. Mullvad Browser provides these protections out of the box, at the expense of some flexibility and convenience that other hardened browsers can provide.
For the strongest anti-fingerprinting protection, we recommend using Mullvad Browser in conjunction with a VPN, whether that is Mullvad or another recommended VPN provider. When using a VPN, Mullvad Browser creates a “crowd” of other users for you to blend in with, which is the only way to thwart advanced tracking scripts, and is the same anti-fingerprinting technique used by Tor Browser.
Note that while you can use Mullvad Browser with any provider, other people using your VPN provider must be using Mullvad Browser for this “crowd” to exist, something which is more likely on Mullvad VPN compared to other providers, particularly this close to the launch of Mullvad Browser. Mullvad Browser does not have built-in VPN connectivity, nor does it check whether you are using a VPN before browsing, your VPN connection has to be configured and managed separately.
I understood it like this
That’s it, I wanted to know the difference between an installation on an OS and the proposed Firefox extension
The Mullvad extension is added by default in the Mullvad Browser. If you choose to only add the extension in firefox you won’t benefit from all the security and privacy settings from the browser himself which is based on Tor Browser.
I understand better, thanks for the explanation
I don’t see a reason to not recommend Mullvad Browser.
I am still learning how to use it. It seems to block a lot of common sites and it advertises their VPN quite a bit.
I will play around with it some more.
I think mullvad browser should be kept 2nd or third but not first atleast.
Mullvad browser currently does not have an option other than Private browsing mode , so users will anyway have to install a second browser - brave or Firefox in order to be logged into their websites.
MB is mostly based on blending with crowd approach for anti-fingerprinting , so it assumes that a large crowd uses the same browser without any modifications. It might be a best option for users of mullvad vpn or any other vpn, but it cannot be assumed that all visitors of PG website are using a VPN in daily use and would be looking for just a private browser.
The top position imo could be brave since it provides right balance between setup , usability and fp protections followed by firefox or MB. or if firefox is decided to kept as top like the current order , MB would have to be shifted at the bottom.
Status: In Progress → Done
This recommendation is now live. As a follow-up, after an internal team discussion we decided to keep the proposed order as-is (based on technical privacy merit):
Remember that recommendation ordering is not indicative of overall quality, it is just a matter of presenting information in an order which is most useful to readers. All of our recommendations are good, otherwise they wouldn’t be recommended! 
As a reminder, we lock tool suggestion topics when they are completed, but if you wish to respond to any discussion here you can start a new reply topic by selecting the text you want to respond to and clicking Quote:
