Exploring European Alternatives for Serverless Hosting and CDN Beyond Vercel/Cloudflare

Finding European hosting and CDN solutions similar to the offerings from Vercel or Cloudflare Pages/Workers is a common need, driven by various factors including data sovereignty and a desire to support European infrastructure. The landscape of European providers is rich, with several strong contenders catering to different requirements.

Recommended European Providers

Bunny.net: Hailing from Slovenia, Bunny.net consistently receives high praise, particularly for static site hosting and as a CDN. Users describe their service as "superb," making it a strong recommendation for those needing reliable performance and a European base.
Scaleway: For those in search of serverless compute capabilities, akin to AWS Lambda or Cloudflare Workers, Scaleway emerges as a notable European option. It provides a platform for running serverless functions within the European data landscape.
Hetzner: With a long history and a very good reputation, Hetzner is a solid choice for virtual machine (VM) hosting. While it doesn't offer serverless runtime out-of-the-box like Vercel or Cloudflare Workers, it provides robust infrastructure for traditional hosting needs.
Statichost.eu: This provider is highlighted as a "neat" option specifically for static hosting. It's important to note, however, that it does not currently support serverless functions.
CDN77: Based in the Czech Republic, CDN77 is another excellent European option for Content Delivery Network services, providing fast content delivery across the continent.

The Debate Over US vs. European Providers

A significant portion of the conversation revolves around the rationale behind seeking European alternatives, particularly when companies like Cloudflare already have a strong presence with Points of Presence (POPs) in Europe. The core concern isn't about physical proximity or performance, but rather legal jurisdiction.

Even with data centers located in Europe, a US-based company remains subject to American laws. This raises concerns about data sovereignty, potential government access to data, and the unpredictable nature of evolving legal frameworks in the United States. The argument is that relying on a US company for critical infrastructure, despite current positive experiences or assurances from leadership, carries inherent risks due to potential future changes in policy, leadership, or even ownership, which could be influenced by "hostile powers" from a European perspective.

Conversely, some argue that practical considerations like price, quality, user experience (UX), and developer experience (DX) ultimately drive adoption. While legal concerns are valid, current performance and features often win out. However, the counter-argument emphasizes a proactive stance: the problem isn't "to date" impact, but rather "what might be" in the future, advocating for a cautious approach to critical infrastructure.

Ultimately, the choice between US and European providers often boils down to a balance between immediate pragmatic benefits and long-term strategic considerations regarding data governance and legal jurisdiction.