What privacy features differentiate Qwant from DuckDuckGo and Brave Search?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Qwant distinguishes itself from DuckDuckGo and Brave Search primarily through its European origin and operational choices—hosting servers in France and positioning as an EU-focused alternative—while historically relying on Bing’s index and only recently committing to build a European privacy-first index in partnership with Ecosia [1] [2]. By contrast, DuckDuckGo emphasizes strict non‑collection and anonymous delivery of search results and largely depends on third‑party indexes (notably Bing), whereas Brave Search promotes an independently built index and a “no tracking/no profiling” stance plus browser-level privacy tools [3] [4] [5].
1. Qwant’s Europe-first infrastructure and legal framing vs. the others
Qwant markets itself as a European alternative that operates servers in Rouen and explicitly aligns with European legislation and the EU digital economy, which the company uses as a privacy and sovereignty argument—an implicit policy distinction that matters for data residency and legal jurisdiction but does not, by itself, guarantee different technical handling of queries compared with competitors [1].
2. Indexing and result sourcing: hybrid Bing proxy vs. independent vs. mixed models
Historically Qwant has functioned largely as a Bing proxy for results and has combined that with first‑party crawling, but it announced in late 2024 a partnership with Ecosia to create European Search Perspective (EUSP) and to develop a privacy‑first index that will be used by both Qwant and Ecosia, signaling a move away from pure reliance on Bing [2]. DuckDuckGo, meanwhile, has long relied substantially on external indexes (notably Bing), which shapes both its results and its privacy posture [3], while Brave Search emphasizes an independently built index and promotes that as a means to reduce dependency on Big Tech crawlers and profiling [5] [4].
3. Data handling and tracking claims: “we don’t collect” vs. EU positioning vs. “no profiling”
DuckDuckGo’s core public privacy claim is straightforward: it does not collect or share personal information and offers features such as a Tor .onion site and privacy‑focused UI options that support anonymous browsing [4] [3]. Brave Search presents a similar slogan of not tracking searches or building user profiles, adding that it uses its own index to avoid third‑party profiling [5]. Qwant asserts privacy protections—no cookies or third‑party trackers are part of its public messaging in some privacy listings—but reporting repeatedly notes Qwant’s mixed technical architecture (first‑party crawl plus Bing APIs) and that it is not fully open source, which complicates independent verification of all privacy‑preserving claims [5] [4].
4. Product features and ecosystem differences that affect privacy in practice
Brave ties search to a privacy‑oriented browser with features such as Brave Shields (tracker/ad blocking), Goggles (result filters), and an ecosystem that includes optional ads/rewards; these browser‑level tools can harden privacy beyond search alone [6] [4]. DuckDuckGo focuses on simplicity and local browser integration, with lightweight privacy features and some monetization through affiliate relationships and search‑network ads [7] [6]. Qwant’s distinguishing features are more geopolitical and UX oriented—EU servers, maps based on OpenMapTiles, and private map history storage—rather than a larger suite of integrated browser protections [4] [1].
5. Transparency, verifiability, and known limits
Brave’s claim of an independent index is verifiable in product descriptions and third‑party guides [5], and DuckDuckGo’s privacy policy is often quoted as “we don’t collect,” though independent audits and occasional tracker observations on result pages have been reported in broader reviews [4]. Qwant’s mixed reliance on Bing and its non‑open‑source status mean that journalists and privacy researchers note a transparency gap: its EU hosting and policy stance are meaningful but do not fully substitute for verifiable technical isolation from Big Tech indexing [2] [5] [4].
Conclusion
The practical privacy differences come down to three vectors: operational jurisdiction (Qwant’s EU servers and mission), index architecture (Brave’s independent index vs. DuckDuckGo’s and Qwant’s historical reliance on Bing/APIs), and ecosystem tools (Brave’s browser shields and features vs. DuckDuckGo’s lightweight, policy‑driven anonymity and Qwant’s Europe‑focused services). Users seeking strictly technical decoupling from Big Tech will point to Brave; those who prize simple, stated non‑collection policies often choose DuckDuckGo; and users prioritizing EU data residency and a European alternative may prefer Qwant—while recognizing Qwant’s past dependence on Bing and the ongoing transition toward a homegrown European index [5] [3] [2] [1].