How European software companies market themselves and handle customer data.

Nikitas Filosofof & Filippos Taprantzis· 13 min read

European software companies use customer-data tools to run their websites, measure activity and market their products.

These tools can receive visitor and customer data. The website does not always say which tools are present, when they start receiving data or what their suppliers may do with it.

We examined 2,357 B2B and B2B2C software companies across 30 European countries. We checked which tools appeared on their websites, how consent worked, what their privacy policies and supplier documentation said, and whether we could find ads on Google, LinkedIn or Meta.

Here is what we found.

Main findings

  • Most websites had three or fewer customer-data tools. Across the study, we found 783 different tools.
  • We found no consent tool on more than half of the websites.
  • In 82.7% of 825 automated visits, the website contacted a known tracking service before the visitor answered the consent banner.
  • Most privacy policies did not name the customer-data tools found on the same website.
  • US-controlled tools appeared 11,004 times across the websites, compared with 1,671 appearances for EU/EEA-controlled tools.
  • We found ads for fewer than one in three companies.

See the study methodology for how we selected the companies, checked each result and recorded the limits of the evidence.

The companies in this study.

All are European B2B or B2B2C software companies with enough public evidence to compare their websites and customer-data tools. They were selected from companies listed by EU-Startups, matched to their public websites and limited to companies with estimated organic traffic.

Companies
2,357
Countries
30
B2B
2,280
B2B2C
77

Our dataset included

  • ActiveCampaign AI logo ActiveCampaign AI
  • Better Stack logo Better Stack
  • Adjust logo Adjust
  • Cloudbeds logo Cloudbeds
  • ElevenLabs logo ElevenLabs
  • YouCanBookMe logo YouCanBookMe
  • Algolia logo Algolia
  • CookieFirst logo CookieFirst
  • Ausha logo Ausha
  • bunny.net logo bunny.net
  • BuzzSumo logo BuzzSumo
  • Whistleblower Software logo Whistleblower Software
  • Mews logo Mews
  • AssoConnect logo AssoConnect
  • Wondershare Virbo logo Wondershare Virbo
  • CopeCart logo CopeCart
  • Amenitiz logo Amenitiz
  • Genially Web logo Genially Web
  • Contentful logo Contentful
  • Adblock Plus logo Adblock Plus
  • CoverManager logo CoverManager
  • Databox logo Databox
  • Zeeg logo Zeeg
  • Bynder logo Bynder
  • Chargebee logo Chargebee
  • Flowbite logo Flowbite
  • Barion Payment logo Barion Payment
  • Involve.me logo Involve.me
  • Creative Fabrica logo Creative Fabrica
  • Choice logo Choice
  • Chili Piper logo Chili Piper
  • Apify logo Apify
  • Strapi logo Strapi
  • AgoraPulse logo AgoraPulse
  • CloudTalk logo CloudTalk
  • Linkly logo Linkly
  • Refinitiv logo Refinitiv
  • Aircall logo Aircall
  • Citymapper logo Citymapper
  • Infobip logo Infobip
  • Checkout.com logo Checkout.com
  • AidaForm logo AidaForm
  • meetergo logo meetergo
  • Cognism logo Cognism
  • ClouDNS logo ClouDNS
  • commercetools logo commercetools
  • Survicate logo Survicate
  • Aikido Security logo Aikido Security
  • Brizy logo Brizy
  • Pintura logo Pintura
Request dataset

Google Tag Manager with Google Analytics was the most common combination, appearing on only 9% of websites.

There was no standard customer-data tool setup across the websites, and every other combination was far less common.

15 most common combinations of visible customer-data tools

The top bars show how often each combination was found. The left bars show how many websites had each tool. Connected dots show which tools make up each combination.
View the data behind this chart
Companies in the cohort with each tool detected
ToolCompaniesShare of cohort
Google Tag Manager163769.5%
Google Analytics149163.3%
HubSpot67328.6%
Google Ads66128.0%
LinkedIn Insight Tag58324.7%
Facebook Pixel46719.8%
Microsoft Clarity34314.6%
Hotjar25810.9%
CookieYes1918.1%
PostHog1707.2%
Most common exact combinations
RankToolsCompaniesShare of cohort
1Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics2139.0%
2Google Analytics592.5%
3Google Tag Manager552.3%
4Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, HubSpot431.8%
5Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Google Ads371.6%
6Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Facebook Pixel261.1%
7PostHog261.1%
8Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, HubSpot, LinkedIn Insight Tag231.0%
9HubSpot210.9%
10Google Tag Manager, HubSpot190.8%
11Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, CookieYes190.8%
12Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, HubSpot, Google Ads160.7%
13Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity150.6%
14Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Hotjar140.6%
15Google Tag Manager, Google Analytics, Google Ads, Facebook Pixel140.6%
Permalink and citation

Most websites had three or fewer customer-data tools.

The websites had many different tool combinations, and most combinations were small.

Distribution of visible customer-data tools per company

The final bar groups websites with ten or more tools.
View the data behind this chart
Visible toolsCompaniesShare of cohort
032813.9%
123510.0%
241417.6%
335014.8%
433714.3%
52269.6%
61877.9%
71345.7%
8602.5%
9512.2%
10+351.5%
Permalink and citation

The tools serve ten different purposes.

Most tools supported the website itself, from content to infrastructure. We found fewer tools for marketing, analytics and support, although some were found on hundreds of websites.

Technologies grouped by primary purpose

  1. HubSpot
    673 sites
  2. Google Ads
    652 sites
  3. Linkedin Insight Tag
    583 sites
  4. Facebook Pixel
    467 sites
  5. Yoast SEO
    313 sites
  6. Google Ads Conversion Tracking
    120 sites
  7. Leadfeeder
    99 sites
  8. Microsoft Advertising
    86 sites
  9. Twitter Ads
    49 sites
  10. HubSpot WordPress plugin
    35 sites

We found no consent tool on more than half of the websites.

No individual consent tool was widespread. Even HubSpot Cookie Policy Banner, the most common, was found on fewer than one in four websites.

  1. No consent tool found
    1,192 sites
  2. HubSpot Cookie Policy Banner
    511 sites
  3. Cookiebot
    279 sites
  4. Consentmo
    246 sites
  5. Usercentrics
    217 sites
  6. CookieYes
    213 sites
  7. Cookie Control
    187 sites
  8. Complianz
    78 sites
  9. OneTrust
    65 sites
  10. iubenda
    52 sites
  11. Axeptio
    43 sites

Nearly half of the websites with tracking tools had no consent banner.

Finding a common tracking tool did not mean that a consent banner was present. The comparison covered 1,893 websites where we found Google Ads, Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, Hotjar or PostHog.

Share of tracking sites without a consent banner

Permalink and citation

Four in five consent banners had an accept button and a reject button.

We could read the controls on 878 banners. Most showed both choices, but one in eight showed an accept button without a reject button.

Your privacy

We use cookies to understand what works and make this site better. The choice is yours.

Reject all Accept all Preferences
Accept and reject offered
79.3%
Accept without reject
12.2%
Preferences offered
77.9%

82.7% of websites contacted a known tracking service before visitors responded to the consent banner.

After visitors accepted the banner, 39% of websites contacted at least one new tracking service.

Permalink and citation

Most privacy policies did not disclose the customer-data tools found on the same website.

Privacy policy disclosure gap by tool

Not one of the ten tools appeared in most privacy policies. Even Google Analytics, which was named most often, was missing more often than it was mentioned.

View the data behind this chart
ToolDetected sitesNamed in policyNot namedShare named
Google Tag Manager4694742210.0%
Google Ads3725731515.3%
Google Analytics26711015741.2%
LinkedIn24510314242.0%
HubSpot2336516827.9%
Facebook1504910132.7%
Cloudflare12761214.7%
Cookiebot111209118.0%
Microsoft Clarity11071036.4%
Hotjar100217921.0%
Permalink and citation

Across the websites, we found more than six US-controlled tools for every EU/EEA-controlled tool.

We call this gap the data trade deficit. The comparison is based on the tools we found on company websites. Governance and compliance was the only area where EU/EEA-controlled tools were found more often.

Customer-data tool detections across company websites

A tool is counted once for each website where it was found, so one website can contribute several observations.
View the data behind this chart
PurposeEU / EEA-controlled detectionsEU / EEA examplesUS-controlled detectionsUS examplesUK-controlled detectionsOther control detectionsUnknown control detectionsTotal detectionsEU / EEA minus US
Website infrastructure75Bunny, Hostinger, Pusher3830Cloudflare, Google Font API, Amazon Web Services1896494149-3755
Marketing and customer acquisition202Leadfeeder, Leadinfo, Trustpilot2785HubSpot, Google Ads, Linkedin Insight Tag93503031-2583
Measurement and insights401Hotjar, Plausible, Contentsquare2354Google Analytics, Microsoft Clarity, PostHog47602835-1953
Website content and experience138Framer Sites, Storyblok, Weglot959Webflow, LottieFiles, YouTube225021351-821
Customer interaction and support63Crisp Live Chat, Tally, Typeform451Intercom, HubSpot Chat, Calendly3230540-388
Security and abuse prevention0362reCAPTCHA, Cloudflare Turnstile, Facebook Login040366-362
Commerce and payments3Convious, PayU Payment, Shopware90Webflow Ecommerce, Squarespace Commerce, Stripe7500150-87
Governance and compliance767Cookiebot, Usercentrics, Cybot83HubSpot Cookie Policy Banner, Osano, Segment Consent Manager193001043684
Data collection and tag management067Segment, Rudderstack20069-67
Business operations22Personio, Recruitee, Odoo23Cloudinary, ServiceNow, Airtable02047-1
Permalink and citation

For most tools, documentation did not say whether data could stay in the EU.

Public documentation rarely gave companies a clear answer about keeping customer data in the EU. Some EU options also came with extra conditions.

Whether customer data can stay in the EU

Each cell represents one of the 361 tools reviewed.
View the data behind this chart
QuestionStateToolsPercentage
Can data stay in the EU?EU location available4612.7%
Can data stay in the EU?Available with conditions123.3%
Can data stay in the EU?No clear answer30383.9%
Permalink and citation

Nearly half of the tools allowed suppliers to use customer data for product improvement.

Suppliers could use customer data for more than providing the service. For other uses, customers often could not tell whether their data might be used for ads, profiling, AI training or comparisons with other customers.

Supplier terms for secondary use of customer data

Tools whose terms gave no clear answer are not included in the bars.
View the data behind this chart
TopicUse permittedUse permitted examplesUse prohibitedUse prohibited examplesExplicit positionsShare of 361 with an explicit positionNo explicit position
Improving the supplier’s product175Google Analytics, Cloudflare, HubSpot7Cookiebot, Cybot, Plausible18250.4%179
Advertising or profiling customers97Google Analytics, Linkedin Insight Tag, Facebook Pixel23Cloudflare, Cookiebot, Hotjar12033.2%241
Training machine-learning models53HubSpot, Microsoft Clarity, Vercel15Netlify, Craft CMS, Qualified6818.8%293
Comparing performance across customers32HubSpot, Hotjar, Usercentrics3Wix, Netlify, DatoCMS359.7%326
Permalink and citation

We found ads for fewer than one in three companies.

Most companies with ads appeared on only one of the three channels, usually Google paid search. The checks covered specific dates, and advertising may have changed before or after them.

Advertising channel combinations across the cohort

Each company is counted once, under the channels where we found its ads.
View the data behind this chart
Companies in the cohort with each advertising channel found
ChannelCompaniesShare of cohort
Google paid search50221.3%
LinkedIn Ads28312.0%
Meta Ads1938.2%
Exact advertising-channel combinations
RankChannelsCompaniesShare of cohort
1Google paid search25710.9%
2Google paid search, LinkedIn Ads1154.9%
3LinkedIn Ads1044.4%
4Google paid search, Meta Ads763.2%
5Google paid search, LinkedIn Ads, Meta Ads542.3%
6Meta Ads532.2%
7LinkedIn Ads, Meta Ads100.4%
Permalink and citation

Most companies with an advertising tag had no ad on that platform.

Advertising-result and website-tag overlap by channel

Website tags and ads often appeared separately on all three platforms.

View the data behind this chart
ChannelWebsite tag onlyWebsite tag only shareWebsite tag and ad resultBoth signals shareAd result onlyAd result only shareCompanies with either signal
Google paid search38643.5%27531.0%22725.6%888
LinkedIn Ads44661.2%13718.8%14620.0%729
Meta Ads37766.1%9015.8%10318.1%570
Permalink and citation

A few tools still add up to a data system.

Across all the websites, we found 783 different tools, but the median website used only three customer-data tools. The problem was not the number of tools, but whether the company understood how they worked together.

Governance and compliance was the only category where EU/EEA-controlled tools appeared more often than US-controlled ones, yet privacy was where we found the clearest problems. On many sites, trackers sent data before the visitor answered the consent banner, and privacy policies did not name tools we found. We do not think these companies mean to break the law, but many may be doing it by accident and should check.

We saw a similar gap in marketing, where the ads we found often did not match the advertising tags on the website. More tools will not fix this: companies need a clear view of the tools they use, where their data goes and who is responsible for each part. That should be normal for a growing company, not only for big tech.