SourceHut vs GitHub
SourceHut is a European alternative to GitHub: same developer tools use case, headquartered in Netherlands and operating under GDPR by default, while GitHub (Microsoft) is based in the United States.
By the EU Alternatives team Last updated
- Jurisdiction
- EU / EEA
- GDPR by default
- Yes
- US CLOUD Act exposure
- No
- Open source
- Yes
- Free tier
- No
GitHub hosts most of the world's open source code and a great deal of private code too, wrapping git in pull requests, issues and CI. Free accounts include unlimited repositories, with paid tiers for teams and enterprises. Microsoft, headquartered in Redmond, Washington, has owned GitHub since 2018.
- Jurisdiction
- US
- GDPR by default
- Requires DPA + TIA
- US CLOUD Act exposure
- Yes
SourceHut vs GitHub at a glance
| SourceHut | GitHub | |
|---|---|---|
| Headquarters | Netherlands | US |
| Data jurisdiction | EU / EEA | US law applies |
| GDPR by default | Yes | Requires DPA + transfer assessment |
| US CLOUD Act exposure | No | Yes |
| Open source | Yes | — |
| Free tier | No | — |
| Best for | Teams that need developer tools with EU data residency | Teams already invested in the Microsoft ecosystem |
Choose SourceHut if…
- You want your data to stay under EU law without extra legal paperwork
- GDPR compliance or public-sector requirements apply to you
- Open-source code and self-hosting matter to you
- You'd rather back the European tech ecosystem
Stick with GitHub if…
- You depend on integrations only available in the Microsoft ecosystem
- Your organisation has no EU data-residency constraints
- Migration costs outweigh the jurisdiction benefits for now
Why choose SourceHut over GitHub?
The decisive argument is data jurisdiction. GitHub is headquartered in US, which means personal data processed through it can be subject to non-EU legal regimes: the US CLOUD Act, FISA 702, or similar laws depending on the provider. After the 2020 Schrems II ruling, EU organisations must carry out a transfer impact assessment for every such data flow.
SourceHut removes that overhead. As a Netherlands-based provider, it operates natively under GDPR, and data stays inside the EU/EEA by default. For regulated sectors such as health, public administration, and finance, that's not a nice-to-have but a requirement. For everyone else, it's concentration-risk insurance: you avoid depending on a single non-EU jurisdiction that can change the rules without warning.