Key takeaways
- EU storage is the easy part. AI visibility tools send prompts to LLM providers, many of them US-based, so subprocessors and transfer mechanisms matter more than the location of the database.
- Ask for five things in writing: a signed DPA, a subprocessor list with the transfer mechanism, verifiable data residency, deletion on request, and published data flows.
- "EU-hosted" and "GDPR-compliant" claims on comparison pages are mostly vendor or affiliate marketing. I found no independent audit of any tool's hosting, so verify everything yourself.
- A short list worth starting with: Promptwatch (ISO/IEC 27001, GDPR, Amsterdam-based), Peec AI (Berlin), Briljant (Dutch), and Howseen (Frankfurt hosting, self-reported).
- Check engine coverage and local-language tracking too. A tool that is perfectly compliant but misses Dutch or French prompts is not much use in Amsterdam or Brussels.
Why GDPR is a real question for AI visibility tools
Here is the awkward truth. Most AI visibility tools track brand prompts, not personal data. Whether they process personal data at all is arguable. But your DPO will still ask for a Data Processing Agreement, and procurement teams at banks, insurers and public bodies in the Netherlands and Belgium will not sign off without one. So it pays to have the answers ready before you start a trial.
The legal frame is simple. If the tool touches personal data, the GDPR (AVG in Dutch) applies in full. In the Netherlands the regulator is the Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens; in Belgium it is the Gegevensbeschermingsautoriteit. Law & More summarises the Dutch position well: the GDPR applies today, the AI Act's bans on prohibited practices and the AI literacy duty have applied since 2 February 2025, and the postponement of the high-risk regime does not suspend anything in the GDPR.
Their practical point is useful for tool buying: if you purchase an AI tool, check whether the supplier uses your input to train its own models. If it does, you need clear contractual terms on controller and processor roles.
What an AI visibility tool actually does with your data
Understanding the data flow tells you what to ask. According to the evaluation framework published by Howseen (a vendor, so treat it as vendor-authored), the tool acts as a data processor and the LLM providers it queries are subprocessors, mostly US-based. It sends prompts, your domain, and sometimes competitor or content data to those providers.
That means three layers to look at:
- The vendor's own database and app servers (where your account, prompts and reports live).
- The AI engines being queried (ChatGPT, Gemini, Perplexity and others), which are usually outside the EU.
- Any extra subprocessors for crawling, analytics, billing and email.
A vendor can truthfully say "our data is hosted in Frankfurt" and still send every prompt to a US provider. That is not necessarily a violation. It just means the transfer mechanism has to be documented.
The five things to get in writing
This checklist is adapted from the Howseen framework and the GDPR text itself. Article 28(1) requires "sufficient guarantees" from processors, and sub-processors need prior written authorisation from the controller.
- A signed Data Processing Agreement.
- A published subprocessor list, including the transfer mechanism for each: Standard Contractual Clauses, or certification under the EU-US Data Privacy Framework (adequacy decision of 10 July 2023).
- Verifiable data residency, not just a line on a pricing page.
- Data minimisation and deletion on request.
- Published data flows, so your DPO can see what leaves the EU.
The stakes are not trivial. Under Article 83, breaches of processor obligations can reach EUR 10M or 2% of worldwide turnover, and unlawful third-country transfers can reach EUR 20M or 4%. In practice a small brand-monitoring tool is unlikely to be the focus of enforcement, but the controller (you) carries responsibility for choosing a processor with adequate guarantees.
Beyond compliance: what else to check
Compliance gets a tool onto the shortlist. These points decide whether it is any good for Dutch and Belgian teams:
- Language and locale coverage. An answer in French can name different brands than the same question in English, and Dutch prompts behave differently again. Belgian companies often need Dutch and French tracked separately.
- Engine coverage, tracked individually. Promptwatch Data on average sources per response shows how differently the engines behave: ChatGPT cites about 5 sources per web-search answer, Google AI Overviews about 10, and Perplexity almost exactly 10 every day, while Microsoft Copilot swung from under 2 to nearly 17 before settling at the low end. A blended score hides that.
- Local buyer prompts, not just generic English ones.
- Proof of impact, such as traffic and conversions, not just a visibility score.
The shortlist
Below is the comparison I would start from. Hosting claims come from different sources and vary in reliability, so the last column tells you what to verify.
| Tool | Base | Hosting and compliance signal | Pricing signal (verify) | Verify before buying |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Promptwatch | Amsterdam (NYC office) | ISO/IEC 27001 certified, GDPR compliant | Free Explore plan; Essential $95/mo | DPA and subprocessor list for your procurement team |
| Peec AI | Berlin | Described as EU-hosted and GDPR-aligned by third-party reviews | Reported from about EUR 89 to $95/mo; sources conflict | Pricing page, DPA, subprocessors |
| Briljant | Netherlands | Dutch GEO platform | Not verified | Hosting location, DPA |
| Howseen | France | Frankfurt hosting, euro billing (self-reported) | Not verified | Independent confirmation |
| Otterly.AI | Not confirmed | No EU hosting claim found | Reported tiers of $29, $189, $489/mo | Hosting, DPA |
| Profound | US vendor | No EU hosting claim found | Custom enterprise pricing | DPA, transfer mechanism |
| AthenaHQ | Not confirmed | No EU hosting claim found | Free tier, then about $295/mo | Hosting, DPA |
Prices move constantly and the sources I found contradict each other, so always confirm on the vendor's own pricing page.
Promptwatch
Promptwatch is the one I would put first for a regulated Dutch or Belgian buyer, for a few concrete reasons. The company is Promptwatch B.V., headquartered in Amsterdam, with a US office in New York. It is ISO/IEC 27001 certified and GDPR compliant, which matters when a security review lands on your desk. It also has SSO, audit logs, scoped API keys and owner, editor and viewer roles for larger teams.
It is also the broadest option here. It tracks the real interfaces of ChatGPT, Google AI Overviews, AI Mode, Gemini, Perplexity, Copilot and more, in each country and language, and goes past monitoring with IP-verified crawler logs, visitor analytics and a Content Agent that publishes to WordPress, Webflow or Framer. Country tracking is on every paid plan. Pricing starts at $95/mo for Essential, with a free Explore plan to test with; check promptwatch.com/pricing for current numbers.
Still ask for the DPA and subprocessor list like you would from anyone else. ISO 27001 is a strong signal, not a substitute for the paperwork.
Peec AI
Peec is Berlin-based and commonly described as EU-hosted and GDPR-aligned, though that comes from third-party reviews rather than an audit I could find. Standard tiers include three models chosen from ChatGPT, Gemini, AI Mode, AI Overviews, Copilot and others, with more as paid add-ons. Reported funding is $29M, including a $21M Series A in November 2025. Pricing is inconsistent across sources (about $95/mo on one comparison page, from EUR 89 on another), so confirm on peec.ai/pricing.
Briljant
Briljant is a Dutch GEO platform tracking visibility in ChatGPT and Perplexity. For a Dutch-language market it is worth a look, mainly for local focus. I could not verify hosting details or pricing, so treat it as a candidate to interview rather than a confirmed fit.
Howseen
Howseen says its customer database and app servers are in Frankfurt, that it bills in euros, and that it was built in France. All self-reported. Its evaluation framework is genuinely useful (I borrowed from it above), but it is a vendor selling a product, so verify the claims like any other.
The US-based names
Otterly.AI, Profound and AthenaHQ are widely used, and I found no EU hosting claim for any of them. That does not make them non-compliant. It means the DPA and transfer mechanism are the questions. Profound is a US vendor with enterprise pricing reported at $2,000 to $5,000+ per month, so the DPA conversation is part of a larger procurement anyway.
Otterly.AI
Profound
If you want a wider view of the category, the GEO software directory at bestgeosoftware.com lists more options, and many of the SEO suites (Semrush, Ahrefs Brand Radar) now bundle AI tracking too.
Pitfalls I would watch for
- Treating "EU-hosted" as a compliance verdict. Storage location is one data point.
- Trusting affiliate comparison pages. Several of the sources I read are written by competitors or resellers. The AthenaHQ comparison of Peec, for instance, is a rival's page.
- Skipping the DPA because the data seems harmless. Brand prompts can still include names, emails or internal product details if someone pastes the wrong thing in.
- Ignoring crawler and analytics components. If a tool installs a tracking script on your site to measure AI visitors, that is a separate privacy question with its own consent and cookie implications. Check how the script handles IP addresses.
- Buying on price alone. Prices swing between sources by 20% or more, and credit-based plans can cost more than they look.
A short procurement routine
Here is a routine that takes about a week and keeps your DPO happy.
- Shortlist three tools using the comparison above.
- Send each vendor the same email asking for the DPA, subprocessor list, transfer mechanism and deletion policy.
- Check ISO 27001 or SOC 2 status on their trust page, and ask for the certificate.
- Run a one-week trial on the same 20 Dutch (and French, for Belgium) prompts in each tool and compare what the tracked answers look like.
- Decide based on answers, not marketing. A vendor who replies quickly with a clean subprocessor list is telling you something.
If you would rather have a team handle the evaluation and the work that follows, an agency like 1001 SEO Media does GEO and AI search consulting and uses Promptwatch as its own platform.
What I could not verify
In the interest of honesty, there are gaps. I found no independent audit of any tool's hosting. I could not confirm each vendor's official DPA and subprocessor page, nor SOC 2 or ISO 27001 status beyond Promptwatch. Peec's current price is uncertain. And the Dutch and Belgian regulators' specific guidance on AI visibility tools does not exist as far as I can tell, so you are applying general GDPR rules. Treat this guide as a way to ask better questions, then verify the answers yourself.
Bottom line
For most Dutch and Belgian companies, Promptwatch is the safest starting point on certifications and breadth, Peec AI is the natural EU-based alternative, and Briljant deserves a look for Dutch-market focus. Whatever you pick, get the DPA and subprocessor list in writing before the trial ends.