Why Does a GEO Report Measure Differently in Italy Than in the Netherlands?

The short answer

Differences between GEO reports by country mainly come down to the fact that AI search features were not launched everywhere at the same time or in the same way. Google introduced AI Overviews across the European Union gradually, by country and language: Poland received the feature in Polish and English, Italy in Italian and English, while the Netherlands came later than countries such as Poland, Italy, Belgium and Spain, according to ICTMagazine.nl. So, a report comparing Dutch citation data with Polish or Italian data is not comparing like for like. It is comparing different stages in the adoption of the same technology. Anyone reporting across markets needs to make that distinction explicit.

Key takeaways

• Country by country rollout: Google introduced AI Overviews across the EU by country and language. Poland and Italy were part of the first group, while the Netherlands followed later, according to ICTMagazine.nl.
• Regulatory delays: A Google representative said the AI Act, DSA and DMA delayed the EU-wide rollout by nine months compared with the US, reports Euronews.
• AI adoption varies by age group: In the Netherlands, 23,4% of people aged 12 and over used an AI program such as ChatGPT in 2024. That rose to 48,7% among 18 to 25 year olds, compared with just 1,3% of people aged 75 and over, according to CBS.
• Rules apply to platforms, not standalone AI features: Under the DMA, search engines are classified as core platform services, but AI as a standalone service is not currently included, according to WilmerHale.
• Enforcement changes little for search engines: Since 2 August 2026, the European Commission has enforced the AI Act, but this has not changed anything for widely available services such as search engines, reports ICT/Magazine.

Why does my Polish GEO report look stronger than my Dutch one?

When a marketing manager places reports from several countries side by side, the difference can be striking: more AI Overview mentions in Warsaw than in Rotterdam, even where the content is broadly comparable. This is not a measurement error. Google did not enable AI Overviews globally on a single date. It introduced them gradually, country by country and language by language. Poland received the feature in Polish and English, Italy in Italian and English, and Switzerland in four languages at once. The Netherlands was not included in the first group of countries to receive it, according to analysis by Search Engine Land and ICTMagazine.nl.

As a result, a GEO tool that counts citations is measuring a Polish market that has been exposed to AI-generated answers for longer, while Dutch users have had less time to search in the same way. If you simply compare citation totals by country without acknowledging that timing gap, you can easily draw the wrong conclusion about where your content is underperforming.

How long will this gap continue?

In practice, rollout differences tend to narrow over time, but not in a straight line. Countries that joined later can catch up quickly as users become familiar with AI-generated answers and search engines improve indexing for the local language. For a small or medium-sized brand active across several EU countries, it makes more sense to reassess country comparisons each quarter than to treat them as fixed facts.

What does this mean for allocating budget across markets?

If a Dutch report shows fewer AI citations than an Italian report, it is tempting to move budget towards the market that already appears to perform better. That is usually the wrong call. The Dutch gap is largely a rollout effect, not a content issue. A smarter approach is to invest early in content structure in the later-launching market, so the content is ready when AI Overviews become fully established there.

Why did regulation hold back the EU rollout for longer than elsewhere?

The European Union received AI Overviews nine months later than the United States. There was a clear reason for the delay. According to a Google representative speaking to Euronews, the combined effect of the AI Act, the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act held back the rollout in most EU member states. This partly explains why a GEO report from an EU country will naturally follow a different timeline from reports from the US or UK, which Launchmind clients sometimes use as a benchmark.

It is important to understand that these regulations do not affect every EU country in exactly the same way. Under the Digital Markets Act, online search engines are designated core platform services and carry specific obligations for gatekeepers. AI as a standalone service is not currently included, according to WilmerHale. That legal distinction between a search engine and an AI feature within a search engine created room for Google to introduce AI Overviews in phases rather than launching them simultaneously across every EU country.

Since 2 August 2026, the European Commission has actively enforced the AI Act and its related transparency requirements, requiring AI model providers to share extensive information. However, according to ICT/Magazine, this does not change anything for widely available services such as search engines. For a small or medium-sized brand reporting internationally, that means regulatory pressure is unlikely to create a quick convergence between countries. For now, differences in GEO reporting between the Netherlands, Poland and Italy remain structural rather than temporary.

If you want to account for these nuances in a report for internal stakeholders or senior leadership, start by deciding when a GEO report is genuinely useful before comparing countries with one another.

How do you compare Polish, Italian and Dutch GEO reports without comparing apples and oranges?

Imagine a Dutch ecommerce company with operations in Warsaw and Milan commissioning three separate GEO reports for Q1. The Polish report shows 34 AI Overview mentions for product categories, the Italian report shows 29, and the Dutch report shows only 11. A marketing manager who presents those numbers to leadership without context risks suggesting that the Dutch content strategy has failed. In reality, the timing of the AI Overview rollout explains much of the gap. Poland and Italy were among the first countries to receive the feature, while the Netherlands was not, as confirmed by ICTMagazine.nl.

Which adjustment factors belong in an international GEO report?

A useful international report should account for at least three factors before ranking countries:

• AI Overview launch date: Record when the feature became available in each country, so an early or late start is not mistaken for content quality.
• Language variation: Poland and Italy received the feature in their local language as well as English. If your content is only available in the local language, you may be missing English-language search demand that is still part of the measurement.
• Maturity of AI adoption among users: In the Netherlands, 23,4% of people aged 12 and over used an AI program in 2024, with major differences between age groups, according to CBS. Comparable age patterns in Poland or Italy may explain results just as much as the content itself.

How do you stop one country from dominating the international strategy?

The risk with aggregated reporting is that the market with the most citations receives the most attention, even if it simply had access to the technology for longer. A better approach is to assess each country on its own growth curve. Ask whether citations in the Netherlands have risen month by month since the local rollout, rather than comparing its absolute number with Poland or Italy. Teams looking to support their market-by-market GEO strategy can apply the same thinking used in our comparison of SEO tools, where we explain how to keep reporting criteria consistent across providers and markets.

At Launchmind, we handle this in practical terms by writing, reviewing and publishing content in eight languages from one place. Each market can move at its own pace, without requiring eight separate manual workflows. That prevents a delayed rollout in the Netherlands from being mistaken for weak content when the market itself is still getting started.

Checklist: how do you build an internationally comparable GEO report?

A report that compares countries fairly needs a consistent set of building blocks. Without them, internal stakeholders can easily draw the wrong conclusions about where budget should go.

Best practice checklist for international GEO reporting:

• Record the AI Overview launch date for every country: Without this date, any comparison between the Netherlands, Poland and Italy is skewed.
• Separate citation data by language, local language versus English: In countries such as Poland and Italy, English-language content also matters. In the Netherlands, it may be less relevant.
• Use market-specific growth curves instead of absolute figures: A rise from 5 to 15 citations tells you more than comparing that market with another country already at 40.
• Track AI adoption figures by country and age group: Use available national figures, such as CBS data for the Netherlands, as a reference point for expected search behaviour.
• Report regulatory delays separately: State clearly whether a gap comes from EU regulation or content quality, so leadership does not take the wrong action.
• Compare the same content structure in each market: Hub-and-spoke clusters that work in Italy should follow the same structure in the Netherlands before you compare performance.
• Reassess the comparison every quarter: AI Overview adoption changes quickly, so a six-month-old report is an unreliable benchmark.
• Document how each tool defines a citation: GEO tools do not all measure citations in the same way. That can make a methodological difference look like a country difference.

Next steps:

1. Ask your current GEO reporting provider which AI Overview launch date they use as the benchmark for each country.
2. Plot citation figures for the Netherlands, Poland and Italy as growth curves, not absolute totals.
3. Identify which part of the gap is caused by regulation or rollout timing, and which part is caused by content.
4. Explore our success stories to see how other international small and medium-sized brands have approached this comparison.

What mistakes do brands make when comparing GEO reports across countries?

The most common mistake is simply adding or averaging citation figures across countries as if AI Overviews had been active for equally long and equally fully in every market. The result is a distorted average that does not accurately represent any individual market.

A second mistake is failing to distinguish between Google AI Overviews and other AI search platforms such as ChatGPT or Perplexity. Each platform has its own rollout pattern, citation behaviour and user base in every country. A report that combines everything into a single AI visibility score per country loses the very information needed to take targeted action. For a deeper understanding of how citation behaviour differs by platform, look at how reliable your GEO report really is before drawing conclusions from combined data.

A third and less obvious mistake is overlooking how AI use varies by country and age group. If an agency bases a Dutch GEO report on the same search volume assumptions as a Polish report without accounting for the target audience's age profile, it creates a distorted picture of potential reach. CBS figures show that AI use in the Netherlands is strongly concentrated among younger groups, with 48,7% usage among 18 to 25 year olds compared with 1,3% among people aged 75 and over, according to CBS. A brand serving an older audience should therefore adjust its AI visibility expectations regardless of country.

Next steps:

• Check whether your current GEO reporting measures AI Overviews and chatbots such as ChatGPT separately rather than combining them.
• Ask your provider for the source date of citation figures in each country.
• Compare the target audience age profile in every market with national AI adoption figures before setting expectations.
• Consider whether your reporting would benefit from automatic updates based on real Search Console data rather than snapshots.

Frequently asked questions

Is the difference in GEO visibility caused by the region or the market itself?

The difference in AI visibility between countries is primarily driven by the technology's rollout timing, not by the quality of the region or brand. Poland and Italy received AI Overviews before the Netherlands, creating a temporary but measurable difference in citation opportunities regardless of local market conditions.

How large is the urban versus rural gap in AI search results?

There is currently no verifiable data on a specific urban versus rural gap within GEO reporting. In the Netherlands, the largest documented gap is by age rather than location. CBS figures show AI use ranging from 48,7% among young adults to 1,3% among people aged 75 and over, a difference that is likely to matter more than the distinction between urban and rural areas.

Which tools reliably measure GEO differences between countries?

Most GEO tools measure citations by platform but do not automatically account for the AI Overview launch date in each country. Launchmind addresses this by planning content for each market using real Search Console data by country, so reporting reflects the actual local availability of AI search features instead of relying on a broad European average.

Will regulation eventually level out the differences between EU countries?

EU AI Act enforcement since 2 August 2026 focuses on transparency requirements for AI models, but it does not change anything for widely available services such as search engines. That means rollout differences between EU countries will not automatically disappear in the short term because of new regulation.

Why does my Italian report show more AI citations than my Dutch report despite equal content investment?

Italy was among the first group of EU countries to receive AI Overviews, while the Netherlands followed later. The difference therefore says more about the technology's rollout stage than the quality of the content in either market.

Conclusion

A GEO report from Poland or Italy does not measure better content than a Dutch report. It measures a market that gained access to AI Overviews earlier and has therefore built up a longer measurement history. To understand country-level GEO reporting differences, separate three factors: the launch date in each country, the language version in which AI answers appear, and AI adoption within the specific target audience. Without that separation, international comparisons can lead to poor budget decisions.

For small and medium-sized brands active in several European countries, the practical lesson is simple: investing early in structured content, including in markets where AI Overviews arrived later, pays off as that market grows. Launchmind supports this by writing, reviewing and publishing content in eight languages from one place, automatically adjusting based on real Search Console data for each market and using hub-and-spoke clusters that reinforce one another rather than compete. Every article goes live only after your approval, with a Google preview sent by email, so you stay in control of what is published in every country.

Want to see how your own international GEO reporting stacks up? Book a no-obligation call and discover how to build a fair country-by-country comparison instead of comparing apples and oranges.

About the company

Launchmind is the AI colleague that writes, reviews and publishes SEO content on your own blog every day, in eight languages, and continually improves using real Search Console data. The platform is built for marketing managers, entrepreneurs and CMOs at small, medium-sized and scaling businesses who know content works but struggle to make it happen consistently.