How does Qwant’s data handling compare in practice to DuckDuckGo and other privacy‑focused search engines?
Executive summary
Qwant and DuckDuckGo both market themselves as privacy-focused alternatives to major search engines, but in practice they take different technical and policy approaches: DuckDuckGo emphasizes a strict no‑logging stance and minimal data retention, while Qwant—though privacy‑oriented—documents collection of some connection metadata such as IP and user‑agent in its policy and leans on European hosting and legal frameworks [1] [2] [3]. For users deciding between them, the differences come down less to a binary private vs not‑private choice than to tradeoffs among data‑collection scope, jurisdictional protections, and feature sets [4] [5].
1. How each company frames privacy: marketing versus policy
Both companies consistently advertise non‑tracking and anti‑profiling stances—Qwant prominently states users aren’t profiled or targeted with personalized ads and highlights cookie controls on first use [5], while DuckDuckGo’s core message is “we don’t collect or share any of your personal information” and it publishes a plain‑language no‑logging promise [5] [6]. Independent summaries and reviews echo those messages but also parse the fine print: multiple comparisons note DuckDuckGo’s stricter claimed policy of not storing IPs or personal identifiers versus Qwant’s public documentation that discloses collection of some connection metadata for internal purposes [1] [2].
2. What “doesn’t track” means in practice: concrete differences
Reporting and comparisons repeatedly emphasize that DuckDuckGo routes searches and design choices to avoid linking queries to users, offering even a Tor onion site for maximum anonymity and stating it does not save IP addresses [5] [7]. By contrast, Qwant’s policy and secondary guides indicate it may collect IP addresses and user‑agent strings and operate server infrastructure in Europe [1] [3], which several reviewers interpret as a realistic privacy difference: Qwant limits profiling and third‑party sharing but still logs some connection metadata for internal use [1] [2]. Those are factual distinctions that matter for adversaries who can exploit raw connection data; reviewers call Qwant “privacy‑oriented” rather than strictly no‑log [2] [4].
3. Technical surface and ecosystem effects on privacy
Feature differences influence privacy in practice: DuckDuckGo’s tracker blocking and browser integrations extend protections beyond search pages [8], and its “bang” commands let users jump directly to site searches, reducing exposure to intermediate referrers [6]. Qwant offers specialized views (news, images, social) and a continental infrastructure that may improve legal protections for European users while also changing how results are curated [4] [3]. Independent testing has found trackers on DuckDuckGo result pages that originate from the company itself, underscoring that even privacy engines have a technical footprint worth auditing [5].
4. Jurisdiction, business model and implicit agendas
Qwant’s positioning as a European alternative is explicit: teams and servers in France and elsewhere in the EU are part of its pitch to users concerned about non‑EU data practices, and that geographic placement is both a privacy and economic narrative [3]. DuckDuckGo’s agenda is narrower—tech privacy and product simplicity—driven by a business model that avoids user profiling, while Qwant’s transparency about some metadata collection suggests a balance between product needs and compliance with EU operational realities [3] [1]. Review sites and forums reflect user preferences and biases—some prefer DuckDuckGo’s minimalist privacy orthodoxy while others value Qwant’s European identity and features, which indicates both companies cultivate distinct constituencies [9] [6].
5. Bottom line — practical implications for different users
For adversaries or high‑sensitivity users who require the smallest possible metadata footprint, DuckDuckGo’s documented no‑logging posture and optional Tor access are stronger practical assurances, while Qwant offers a credible, Europe‑centered privacy alternative that still logs some connection metadata for internal use and product operation [5] [1] [2]. Reviews and comparisons advise treating both as privacy‑improving relative to Google/Bing, but to choose based on jurisdictional trust, feature needs (bangs, tracker blocking, specialized views), and appetite for the small but real differences in data collection that Qwant admits versus DuckDuckGo’s stricter marketing claim [6] [4] [8]. Where reporting is silent on implementation details (e.g., exact retention windows or technical anonymization steps), further primary documentation or audits from the companies would be required to close the gap beyond these publicly available assessments [1] [2].