PCMag Reviews VPNs It Owns: The Ziff Davis Conflict of Interest

You know what pisses me off? When the same company that owns the VPNs also owns the review websites covering them. And nobody seems to care.

Let me tell you about Ziff Davis, a online media company you’ve probably never heard of, but one that’s been quietly building an empire that would make any corrupt dictator jealous.

And they make serious money: this year their revenue is expected to be US$1.47 billion! 🤑

The Setup: Own the Products AND the Reviews

Here’s the deal: Ziff Davis owns a bunch of VPNs:

IPVanish
StrongVPN
Encrypt.me
SaferVPN
FastVPN (formerly Namecheap VPN)
Speedtest VPN

Cool, they’re in the VPN business. Nothing wrong with that.

But here’s where the conflict emerges: They also own the supposedly independent websites reviewing VPNs.

PCMag - One of the most trusted names in tech reviews
CNET - Just acquired in August 2024 for $100 million
IGN - Major gaming and tech site
Mashable - Tech and culture news
ZDNet - Enterprise tech coverage
Lifehacker - Productivity and tech tips

Oh, and they own Speedtest by Ookla - you know, the tool everyone uses to test their internet speed and VPN performance.

So let me get this straight: They own the VPNs, they own the review sites, AND they own the testing tools.

This is like owning a restaurant, the food critic newspaper, AND the health inspection company.

”But Wait, PCMag Gives Their Own VPNs Low Ratings!”

Yeah, I saw that argument coming. PCMag gives Encrypt.me and StrongVPN only 3 stars out of 5. Some people say this proves they’re being objective.

That’s misleading.

You know what’s even more suspicious than giving your own products 5 stars? Giving them 3 stars to create the appearance of objectivity while still keeping them in the conversation.

Think about it: If PCMag gave StrongVPN 5 stars, everyone would cry conflict of interest. But by giving it 3 stars with “balanced” reviews, they can say “See? We’re tough on our own products!” while still driving traffic and awareness to VPNs they own.

It’s the illusion of integrity.

The Speedtest Angle: Controlling the “Proof”

Here’s what really grinds my gears: Ziff Davis owns Speedtest, the most popular internet speed testing tool on the planet. Millions of people use it to test their VPN speeds.

So when PCMag or CNET reviews a VPN and says “We tested it with Speedtest and got these results,” who owns both the VPN being tested AND the testing tool?

That’s right. Ziff Davis.

They control the entire ecosystem:

They make the VPN
They create the tool to test the VPN
They own the website that reviews the VPN
They profit when you click their affiliate links

It’s circular corruption, wrapped in a bow of tech journalism credibility.

The History: How We Got Here

This didn’t happen overnight. Let me walk you through the timeline:

2019: J2 Global (which later became Ziff Davis) acquired IPVanish, StrongVPN, and Encrypt.me from StackPath for an undisclosed amount.

2021: J2 Global rebranded to Ziff Davis. Same company, cleaner name. Less obvious what they’re up to.

2024: Ziff Davis acquired CNET from Red Ventures for $100 million, adding another major tech review site to their portfolio.

Each acquisition makes the problem worse. More VPNs, more review sites, more ways to create the appearance of independent journalism while funneling money back to the same corporate parent.

Why This Matters (Beyond the Obvious)

“So what?” you might ask. “Lots of companies own multiple businesses.”

True. But here’s why this is different:

1. Trust Erosion

PCMag has been around since 1984. People TRUST PCMag. When PCMag says a VPN is good or bad, people listen. But that trust is being exploited when PCMag reviews products its parent company owns - even if those reviews seem balanced.

2. Hidden Agendas

Every VPN review on PCMag or CNET now has to be viewed through the lens of “Does this review benefit Ziff Davis?”

If they trash a competitor’s VPN, is it because it’s actually bad, or because it competes with IPVanish?

If they praise ExpressVPN (owned by Kape, not Ziff Davis), is it because ExpressVPN pays higher affiliate commissions than their own products?

We can’t know. And that’s the problem.

3. Market Manipulation

When you own both the products and the review sites, you don’t just have a conflict of interest - you have the power to shape the entire market narrative.

You can:

Decide which competitors get reviewed
Control the testing methodology
Determine what features matter in reviews
Set the standards that everyone else is judged by

4. The Editor’s Note Charade

To Ziff Davis’s credit, PCMag does include an editor’s note in VPN content that discloses the ownership relationship. It usually says something like:

Note: IPVanish and StrongVPN are owned by Ziff Davis, PCMag’s parent company.

Great. But this disclaimer appears AFTER you’ve already clicked the article, started reading, and formed opinions. It’s buried in the text. It’s the fine print on a contract you’ve already signed.

And here’s the kicker: Most readers don’t know what “Ziff Davis” even is. The disclosure is technically there, but it’s meaningless to 99% of readers who don’t follow corporate acquisition news.

The ExpressVPN Situation: A Different Villain

While we’re talking about VPN ownership, let’s address ExpressVPN - which is NOT owned by Ziff Davis.

ExpressVPN was acquired by Kape Technologies in 2021 for $936 million. Kape also owns:

CyberGhost
Private Internet Access (PIA)
Zenmate

and they have taken a leaf out of Ziff Davis’s playbook by acquiring the ummm… independent review site VPNmentor.com (acquired for $150m)

Why does this matter? Because now when PCMag reviews ExpressVPN favorably, we have to ask: Is it because ExpressVPN is genuinely good, or because ExpressVPN pays out $95 per sale in affiliate commissions while StrongVPN might pay less?

The conflict of interest works both ways. Sometimes promoting competitors is MORE profitable than promoting your own products.

What Can You Actually Trust?

So if you can’t trust PCMag or CNET for VPN reviews, what CAN you trust?

Honestly? Not much. The entire VPN review ecosystem is compromised by affiliate marketing and corporate ownership. But here are some principles:

Follow the Money

Check who owns the VPN
Check who owns the review site
Look for disclosed affiliate relationships
Assume bias unless proven otherwise

Seek Independent Voices

Individual bloggers with no corporate backing (like me, though I’m transparent about my affiliate relationships)
Reddit communities (though these can be astroturfed too)
Technical security researchers who test VPNs for actual security, not marketing claims

Do Your Own Research

Read multiple reviews from different sources
Look for technical analysis, not marketing speak
Check Reddit for real user experiences
Test VPNs yourself with free trials

Ask the Hard Questions

Why is this review recommending THIS VPN?
What does the reviewer gain?
Are there alternative perspectives?
What are users saying outside of official review sites?
Do I really need a VPN?

The Broader Pattern: Review Site Consolidation

The Ziff Davis situation is just one example of a broader problem in tech media: consolidation.

A handful of companies now own most of the “independent” tech review sites:

Ziff Davis: PCMag, CNET, IGN, Mashable, etc.
Red Ventures: Previously owned CNET, still owns BestVPN, CNET competitor sites
Dotdash Meredith: Investopedia, Lifewire, The Spruce
Future PLC: TechRadar, Tom’s Guide, PC Gamer

When these companies also own the products being reviewed - or make massive revenue from affiliate relationships - the entire premise of “independent review” becomes a joke.

What Should Happen (But Won’t)

Ideally, there would be regulations preventing media companies from reviewing products they own. Or at minimum, requiring prominent, impossible-to-miss disclosure.

The FTC has guidelines about affiliate disclosures, but they’re vague and rarely enforced. The disclosures that do exist are often buried or written in corporate speak that means nothing to regular readers.

But let’s be real: This won’t change. There’s too much money involved. Ziff Davis paid $100 million for CNET - they’re not going to handicap their own review sites with honest disclosure that might hurt their VPN sales.

Look, I make money from VPN affiliate commissions too. I’m not pretending to be some pure, unbiased source. But here’s the difference: I’m telling you exactly what I’m doing and why.

If you need a VPN (and you probably don’t - but that’s another article), here’s my actual recommendation:

For Privacy Purists: Mullvad

No affiliate program (I make $0 if you buy it)
Anonymous payment options
Actually secure
Swedish company with real privacy protections

For Streaming/General Use: Proton VPN

Free tier available
Based in Switzerland (actual privacy laws)
Transparent company with security background
I get paid if you use my link, but it’s genuinely good

Avoid: Anything heavily promoted by PCMag, CNET, or sites that seem to all recommend the same three VPNs (ExpressVPN, CyberGhost, Private Internet Access). These are affiliate darlings, not necessarily the best products.

The Bottom Line

Ziff Davis owning both VPNs and VPN review sites is a massive conflict of interest that undermines the entire premise of tech journalism.

It doesn’t matter if PCMag gives their own products mediocre ratings. It doesn’t matter if they include buried disclosure statements. The conflict exists, and it corrupts every review they publish.

The fact that they also own Speedtest - the tool used to “prove” VPN performance - is just the cherry on top of this corrupt arrangement.

You can’t trust PCMag’s VPN reviews. You can’t trust CNET’s. And you definitely can’t trust the Speedtest results they cite as “proof.”

The entire system is designed to look independent while funneling money back to the same corporate parents.

Welcome to modern tech journalism. It’s not journalism - it’s marketing with a editorial facade.

Transparency Note: I run this site with affiliate links too. When I recommend a VPN or hosting company, I make money if you buy it. The difference? I’m telling you this upfront, I attack companies even when they pay well, and I don’t own the products I’m reviewing. That’s the bare minimum of integrity that PCMag and CNET no longer meet.

If you found this useful, share it. People need to know who’s actually behind the “independent” reviews they’re trusting with their money and privacy.