Waterfox vs Safari
Waterfox is a European alternative to Safari: same consumer products use case, headquartered in United Kingdom and governed by UK GDPR, while Safari is based in the United States.
By the EU Alternatives team Last updated
Privacy-focused web browser with built-in tracking protection, oblivious DNS, container tabs, and no data collection. Fast, secure browsing by default.
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Primary privacy law
- UK GDPR
- US CLOUD Act exposure
- No
- Open source
- Yes
- Free tier
- Yes
Safari is the default browser on every Apple device and the reason WebKit still matters, with long battery life and tracking prevention switched on out of the box. It costs nothing because it ships with the operating system, which is also why it runs nowhere else. Apple is an American company and builds it in Cupertino, California.
- Jurisdiction
- United States
- GDPR by default
- Requires DPA + TIA
- US CLOUD Act exposure
- Yes
Waterfox vs Safari at a glance
| Waterfox | Safari | |
|---|---|---|
| Headquarters | United Kingdom | United States |
| Data jurisdiction | United Kingdom | United States |
| Primary privacy law | UK GDPR | Requires DPA + transfer assessment |
| US CLOUD Act exposure | No | Yes |
| Best for | Teams that need consumer products built for European data-protection requirements | Teams already invested in the Safari ecosystem |
Choose Waterfox if…
- You want a provider governed by a European privacy regime
- GDPR or public-sector data-protection requirements apply to you
- You want to start free and scale up later
- Open-source code and self-hosting matter to you
- You'd rather back the European tech ecosystem
Stick with Safari if…
- You depend on integrations only available in the Safari ecosystem
- Your organisation has no EU data-residency constraints
- Migration costs outweigh the jurisdiction benefits for now
About Waterfox
Waterfox is an independent browser for power users, built on Firefox's codebase with the parts that phone home taken out. Tracking protection runs by default, there is no data collection and no remote experiments, and there are no chatbots bolted on: translation runs locally on your own device.
It supports the full uBlock Origin filter list, private tabs isolate sessions from each other without juggling profiles, and a free Oblivious DNS service encrypts lookups while keeping your identity hidden from the resolver. Waterfox keeps the classic extension support and the customisation surface that mainstream browsers have spent years trimming away.
Key benefits:
- No telemetry no data collection and no remote experiments, by policy
- Ad blocking full uBlock Origin filter list support built in
- Oblivious DNS encrypted lookups that hide your identity from the resolver
- Private tabs isolated browsing sessions without a second profile
- Local translation on-device, with no chatbots and no LLM calls
- Classic extension support the add-ons and control Firefox forks are built for
- Open source Mozilla Public License 2.0, developed in the open on GitHub
- Independent self-funded since buying itself back from System1 in 2023
Waterfox is developed by BrowserWorks, the company its founder Alex Kontos set up after parting ways with the advertising firm System1 in July 2023, and the project's GitHub organisation gives the United Kingdom as its location, so UK GDPR applies. The source is public under MPL-2.0 with over 6,000 stars and commits landing this month, which is the check that matters for a browser fork.
Ideal for people who want Firefox without telemetry, and who miss the customisation that mainstream browsers keep removing.
Why choose Waterfox over Safari?
The decisive argument is data jurisdiction. Safari is headquartered in the United States, 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.
Waterfox removes that overhead. As a United Kingdom-based provider, it operates under UK GDPR, and data stays in the United Kingdom, which the European Commission recognises as offering an adequate level of protection. 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 jurisdiction that can change the rules without warning.