This register records exactly one declared alternative to Tor Browser: Mullvad Browser, which reads ACTIVE at the last field check. Tor Browser itself reads ACTIVE. Every row in the table below is judged by the same rubric, from the same sweep, on the same fields — this page ranks nothing and recommends nothing, because a register that has measured no population is in no position to.
Every row below is judged by the same rule as Tor Browser itself, from the
same field check. Supersession is only printed where a project or its
author says so — this register does not infer that one tool replaces
another because it is newer.
Read the state column with the licence column. A permissively licensed
project that stopped shipping is not safer than a copyleft one that did
not.
What Tor Browser does, so you know what you are replacing
The reference implementation of the uniformity model. Rather than hiding one user among many by randomising, it works to make every user's readings the same, and it accepts real usability costs — fixed window sizes, letterboxing, disabled surfaces — to get there.
A substitute has to do that job, not merely occupy the same category. It is listed at its download page and carries no repository fields here, so its state rests on the link check alone. For the surface-by-surface record, read the fingerprinting-protections documentation listed alongside it rather than inferring the behaviour from the binary.
How this register decides what counts as an alternative
Mullvad Browser is recorded as a substitute for the same job. The alternative relation is symmetric and carries no ordering at all: it says these things answer the same question, and it says nothing whatsoever about which answers it better.
Nothing on this page is a ranking, a score or a recommendation, and nothing on it is a detection-test result — no entry in this register has been run against any anti-bot system by this register. What the table gives you is four measured columns and one derived one, applied identically to every row.
How to read the comparison above
Every candidate reads ACTIVE or SEMI, so the choice here is genuinely about fit rather than about survival. Compare the release column rather than the push column: a project that pushes constantly and tags rarely asks you to depend on a branch, which is a different commitment from depending on a version.
1 of the entries in the table declare no licence at all — Mullvad Browser. Read that column before the state column if you intend to ship anything: an absent licence file is an absent grant, and no amount of recent activity substitutes for one. Every no-licence entry in the register is grouped together for the same reason.
Why ACTIVE: pushed_at = 2026-07-23 — 22 days, within the 90-day ACTIVE threshold.
Field
Value at this printing
pushed_at
2026-07-23
archived
false
latest_release
—
license.spdx_id
null (none declared)
stargazers_count
2500
http_status
200
fetched_at
2026-08-14T09:12:00Z
rubric_edition
2nd, in force
Endpoint: GET https://api.github.com/repos/mullvad/mullvad-browser
unauthenticated · 60 req/hr
A live read does not change what is printed above it. The site records that you ran it; what GitHub returned is not kept. The printed state moves only when the register is swept and a new printing is issued. raw JSON
No SPDX identifier is declared on the repository; the upstream it derives from is MPL. That is inference, not a field, so the licence column stays empty. — ED.
Answered from the same fields the table above prints, and from no other source.
What is the best alternative to Tor Browser?
This register does not answer that, because it publishes no ranking and has tested no tool to rank. What it can tell you is which candidates are still shipping: Mullvad Browser. The rest of the decision is fit, licence and how much of your own stack you are prepared to change.
Are these Tor Browser alternatives still maintained?
Mullvad Browser reads ACTIVE. Each of those states is derived from that entry's own measured fields by the rubric in force, at the field check printed in the folio, and the clause that produced it is printed on the entry page.
Why does this list not rank the alternatives?
Because a ranking would be an opinion wearing a number's clothes. Every figure on this site is a date, a count, an SPDX identifier or an HTTP status you can re-fetch from the endpoint named beside it, and there is no honest way to compress those into an ordering without inventing weights nobody published. The rubric sets states; it does not rate them against each other.
Where does the alternatives data for Tor Browser come from?
From declared edges in the register itself, never inferred. Each edge is stored once and reversed at build time, and every field in the table is read from the same sweep that produced the rest of the catalogue. The whole set is downloadable as CC0 JSON and CSV, including the supersedes, superseded_by and alternative_to columns.
You are reading section 01, which is where the browsers live, so the comparison is direct: Donut Browser is filed here too, under the same rule, with the same fields printed against it. What it does differently is where the spoofing happens — the Wayfern Chromium fork applies fingerprint overrides at engine level over CDP rather than by patching page JavaScript after load, which is the same architectural argument several of its neighbours in this section make and a different implementation of it.