[-] aleksandrs@feddit.uk 3 points 3 hours ago

I disclosed monetisation at first place because that can actually bias what I recommend. On the other hand AI just helps me with drafting big texts and content, it does not make any decisions so in my head it looked like just another tool I've used during the development and I haven't really thought it's worth disclosing it.

Fair point though, I'll keep that in mind next time.

[-] aleksandrs@feddit.uk 1 points 5 hours ago

Okay, now thats a bug in both code and the content. Huge thanks for pointing it out. As mentioned in my previous comment the website does have "alternative to X" for some of European products, but it should not display these amongst US tools. Will fix that asap

[-] aleksandrs@feddit.uk 3 points 7 hours ago

I am actually eager to fix, not delete. Every claim is sourced so if a company finds any assessment wrong the first thing I want is them to show me and I will correct it asap. There were couple of cases already.

The removal is for other case tho. Some companies just don't want to be on the list. At some point keeping them there will not help anyone. The whole point of this website is to help people find good options, not pointing which is worse. My thought here is that no good product would claim for a removal anyway.

I will look for a way to work this around tho, as displaying something the company doesn't like might still be very useful for the users.

[-] aleksandrs@feddit.uk 1 points 8 hours ago

Thanks! So far there is only this page describing what can be listed and an email https://euvetted.com/request-listing But more decent submission form is on the roadmap

[-] aleksandrs@feddit.uk 3 points 8 hours ago

Hey. Thank you for mentioning that, will see if it fits in my list

[-] aleksandrs@feddit.uk 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago)

Thank you! Yes, "EU-Sovereign" and others are editorial labels. They should be treated more like "this is complete safe for EU" (or not safe) rather than "this is 100% made in EU". But I will think on the naming more as they are a bit misleading, I agree.

[-] aleksandrs@feddit.uk 3 points 9 hours ago

Okay I thought only us EU guys are trying to disconnect, nice to know that :)

I haven't made a deep research membership donation services yet, the only one that comes to my mind is https://en.liberapay.com/, it's French but it's hosted on AWS Ireland tho. No idea how good it is, never used any of these

[-] aleksandrs@feddit.uk 2 points 10 hours ago

I will review it, saved it to my backlog. Thank you!

[-] aleksandrs@feddit.uk 2 points 11 hours ago

Not at all sir

[-] aleksandrs@feddit.uk 9 points 11 hours ago

Ha, fair and I won't pretend otherwise. The write-ups are AI-drafted. I'm one person covering everything and there is no real option to do it otherwise.

But the line I care about is this. The prose is AI, the facts aren't. Everything you see like ownership, cloud act exposure, hosting region, sub-processors, feature comparisons is verified manually.

And you are right that the tone needs to be fixed.

[-] aleksandrs@feddit.uk 4 points 12 hours ago

Good catch, thanks. The listing is KeePassXC specifically and that fork really is desktop-onlyб so the "no mobile" is technically true for that one app. But you're right that it reads wrong in a comparison: the whole point of KeePassXC is the local .kdbx file, and that opens fine in mobile apps like KeePassDX on Android or Strongbox/KeePassium on iOS. So the KeePass approach does have mobile, even if this app doesn't ship it.

I'll fix the wording so it doesn't imply you're stuck on desktop. Thanks for flagging it.

[-] aleksandrs@feddit.uk 27 points 16 hours ago

A few things that didn't fit in the post: The hardest part wasn't finding EU tools. It was going through the sub-processor lists. Plenty of vendors publish a nice "hosted in the EU" page, then quietly list a US analytics, support, or infrastructure provider in the DPA annex. That's why I treat the sub-processor list as more telling than the hosting claim itself.

So a question for you: which category do you most wish had a genuinely clean option? And which tool are you still stuck using? That's exactly the gap I want to fill next.

313
submitted 17 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago) by aleksandrs@feddit.uk to c/buyeuropean@feddit.uk

euvetted.com

I know there are a dozen of different "EU Alternatives" websites/catalogs already and some of them are actually great for discovering European brands and software. But they never show you what's inside: you only get a name, a logo, a few lines long pitch and then you're on your own.

So after doing some due diligence I've built a more detailed one. Whether you just want a European Dropbox/Google Analytics/1Password etc or you need to know your customers' data won't leave the EU, the idea is the same: give you what you need after the name, not just the name.

Two features I have that surface-level lists do not:

  1. I show the exposure, not just the "European" label. That word hides the part that matters. A company can have a Berlin office, a "hosted in the EU" banner, and still route your data through a US analytics provider or sit on US-owned cloud - at which point US law reaches it regardless of where the rack is. So for every listing I check, and link the source for:
  • Where the data is actually hosted - the data-centre region, not the HQ on the about page.
  • The sub-processor list - the one nobody reads. Pretty EU hosting page up front, US tooling quietly in the DPA annex.
  • CLOUD Act exposure - US parent or US hyperscaler storage means US jurisdiction, full stop.
  • Who owns the company - "EU-founded, US-funded" is a different animal from "EU-owned". Ownership and hosting are shown as separate signals so you decide which one you care about.
  1. A proper feature matrix. Not "here are five alternatives, good luck" - an actual side-by-side, so you can see which tool genuinely replaces the US one feature-for-feature and which is wishful thinking.

Everything is from public sources only - the vendor's own DPA, sub-processors page, the company registry, legal notice etc. Each point has a link to original page and last verification date. Vendor's self-attestation is not taken on faith.

One number that fell out of doing this for more than 200 tools: a little more than 30% are completely clear of US Cloud Act exposure with no US parent and no significat sub-processors.

On money: the site earns nothing right now. There are a couple of affiliate links added already and it's disclosed everywhere they appear plus listed in full on the transparency page. That's the whole monetisation plan: affiliate links, nothing hidden. Listing order is editorial - no commission logic anywhere in how stuff is sorted.

What I would be happy to hear from you: what's missing? Did I get any assessments wrong? If you see something - let me know and I will fix it right away.

Disclaimer: I'm affiliated. I built and run this site. It currently has a couple of affiliate links live; how it's funded is documented in full at https://euvetted.com/transparency

view more: next ›

aleksandrs

joined 3 weeks ago