As far as i understand, both technologies are ment to combat packet size fingerprinting. Besides NYM beeing decentral and Mullvad not, i do not get the differences in the effictiveness.
Nym Mixnet uses cover traffic, Packet mixing (shuffling packets of ur and other users together) and timing delays.
While Nym does essentily the same as Mullvad DAITA, Nym does in addition to DAITA also mix then packets with other users. My question is if that is actully worth it, as as far as i understood, DAITAs decoy packets should be enough or is it not?
Because Mullvad is often mentioned in the Nym community, I like to offer my opinion about DAITA and the Maybenot framework, as I understand it so far.
DAITA and the Maybenot framework could be IMHO in the future a nice addition if they would partner with torproject.org, to make the Tor ecosystem better or as competitor to the Nym ecosystem.
The Nym ecosystem is already many years in service and users do not need a VPN subscription, like Mullvad with DAITA, as they can use all their apps free of charge with the Nym Mixnet, when using the official nym-socks5-client or official nym-client.
The Nym ecosystem offers a Nym SDK for third-party developers, so that people can create client and server software components , which are using the Nym Mixnet free of charge too, like inner-mixnet email, file transfer, chatting etc. routing, which you can’t accomplish with Mullvad, as it uses clearnet Internet endpoints to been reached.
All in all, the Open Source Nym ecosystem outperforms paid Mullvad usage and Tor usage by lengths.
Regarding a comparison between Mullvad VPN and NymVPN, NymVPN has the clear lead as users can choose between dVPN (two hop server mode) or five hop Mixnet mode, which both Mullvad VPN does not offer.