How do Dutch SaaS companies expand internationally?

An analysis of the internationalisation patterns of 281 Dutch SaaS companies

Main recommendations:

#1 Translate your website and localise your SaaS to non-English markets (i.e. Germany & France) much earlier it can lead to up to 20x more traffic

Main takeaways

#1 English- translation selection bias distorts true SaaS market demand.

Of the 281 Dutch SaaS companies I analyzed, nearly all had English websites — many solely in English. English traffic made up 40–50% of their visits. At first glance, this suggests English is the way to go. But in cases where French or German versions were added, traffic increased 4x to 10x. Because SaaS teams operate in English, we often assume customers do too. That creates a selection bias: English looks dominant, but may not reflect true demand.

#2 Firms grow by scaling channels rather than entering brand-new markets as traffic distribution remains unchanged with growth

The website traffic distribution barely changes between small and large SaaS companies, suggesting that many scale by doubling down on the same channels rather than expanding into new markets. It seems they’re optimizing what’s familiar instead of exploring untapped demand - a strategy that feels overly cautious and based on limited insight.

#3 France under-indexes: hard to crack despite big GDP

France is significantly underrepresented relative to its GDP in the traffic data of Dutch SaaS companies. On average, it ranks 11th in off-country traffic, with just a 3% share. Only 13% of companies have translated their website into French, and of the 38 companies with notable French traffic, just 5 show any local headcount. This suggests limited understanding of a market that values local presence — especially for relationship-building over lunch. Yet, for those who do localize, translating the website into French has led to traffic increases of up to 10x.

#4 Germany isn’t as conservative to do business in as people think

Contrary to popular belief, many Dutch SaaS companies successfully serve the German market through inside sales from the Netherlands. Among companies with significant German traffic, only 8 have local headcount — suggesting that having “boots on the ground” isn’t always necessary. This challenges the notion that personal contact is essential; in reality, many German buyers seem to value efficiency, including online meetings, over face-to-face interaction.

#5 Boots on the ground are overrated to be locally successful, but surprisingly overindex in markets like US & UK

No market requires local headcount to appear in the top 10 for traffic, showing there’s no direct correlation between “boots on the ground” and market presence in SaaS. Interestingly, though, digital-first countries like the US and especially the UK are overrepresented in terms of local presence. This suggests that in high-demand, high-competition markets (everyone focusses on the UK & US), buyers tend to gravitate toward safer choices - such as vendors with a local rep or the option for face-to-face interaction.

Weighted Popularity of Traffic Countries

(Rank 1 → 10 points … Rank 10 → 1 point; China, India, Philippines, Indonesia excluded)

Highlights:

1. ‘English-website first’ wins big

2. Germany clicks, even without boots on the ground

3. France seems difficult - Europe’s #2 economy, traffic rank #9

This section describes the weighted popularity of traffic sources by country, based on data from a number of Dutch SaaS companies. Each country was assigned points depending on how frequently and how highly it ranked in terms of website traffic for an individual company. As expected, the Netherlands dominated the list, almost always ranking first in traffic sources—unsurprising for companies operating in their home market.

When aggregating the data, the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia together accounted for more than 50% of the overall traffic to these Dutch companies. This is likely because nearly all of the companies had English versions of their websites—either alongside Dutch or even as the sole language. This strong English-language presence makes it easier for these companies to attract traffic from English-speaking markets.

The first non-English-speaking and non-domestic country on the list is Germany. It receives relatively high traffic despite the fact that most companies have little or no local presence there. This is interesting because Germany is often seen as a challenging, conservative market that requires on-the-ground operations to succeed. Yet the data suggests that German interest is there, even without significant local investment.

Still, it’s important to highlight the steep drop in traffic share from the United Kingdom (ranked third overall) to Germany (ranked fourth). This gap underscores how dominant the top three countries—the Netherlands, the United States, and the United Kingdom—are in terms of traffic share. It also raises the question of why Germany, the Netherlands’ largest economic partner in the EU, doesn’t play a more prominent role.

Canada and Australia also stand out. Despite their small populations and remote locations, they generate significant traffic. This suggests that the accessibility of Dutch software to English-speaking users is a major factor—these countries are clearly punching above their weight.

A surprising result is Spain, which ranks relatively high—higher even than Belgium. Given that Belgium is a neighboring country where a significant portion of the population speaks Dutch, you might expect it to be a more important source of traffic. Yet that’s not reflected in the data.

Perhaps the biggest surprise, however, is France. Despite being Europe’s second-largest economy—even when including the UK—France ranks only ninth. It trails behind countries like Belgium, Spain, Canada, and Australia. This suggests that Dutch companies may be struggling to serve the French market effectively, potentially due to something as straightforward as a lack of French language support.

Rank	Country	Total points	Short Explanation
1	Netherlands	1 394	Home market dominates; often ranks #1.
2	United States	931	Large English-speaking audience; many Dutch SaaS companies target it early.
3	United Kingdom	709	Brexit or not: still the easiest EU export market for Dutch companies.
4	Germany	478	High traffic, but relatively few local sales teams
5	Canada	355	Benefits from English-language website; few cultural barriers
6	Australia	316	Surprisingly high (traffic/performance) despite distance; driven purely by English-language SEO.
7	Spain	258	Strong position as the first non-English/German market.
8	Belgium	239	Proximity + linguistic similarity (Dutch/French)
9	France	215	Large but language-specific; hard to penetrate.
10	Sweden	165	Tech-savvy early adopters; English is often sufficient.

How to Read This

• More points = more frequent and higher rankings in the traffic top 10 across many companies.

• 
  

Weighted Popularity of Traffic Countries grouped by company size

Highlights:

1. US and UK traffic grows with company size—local presence pays off

2. Germany stalls at scale—interest fades without local commitment

3. Southern Europe and France remain underleveraged

Unsurprisingly, the Netherlands dominates as the top traffic source for early-stage Dutch SaaS companies. But as companies grow, its relative share declines—a natural effect of international expansion.

The United States, by contrast, becomes increasingly important with company size. As the world’s largest SaaS market—accounting for nearly half of global SaaS spending—its growing influence tracks with the international ambitions of scaling companies. The same trend applies to the United Kingdom, likely benefiting from shared language, cultural familiarity, and content produced for the US also resonating with UK audiences.

Germany tells a different story. While its share grows modestly among mid-sized companies (50–200 employees), it drops off for larger firms. One possible explanation: larger companies entering the German market face more conservative, corporate buyers who expect localized service and culturally specific sales approaches. Most Dutch SaaS companies, however, don’t appear to invest in a local presence in Germany, which may limit deeper market penetration.

Southern Europe and France gain slightly in importance as companies scale, but they still represent a small share of overall traffic—despite their economic weight and market potential. This suggests an untapped opportunity, but also points to a common reluctance: many companies avoid the complexity of selling into non-English-speaking markets, especially if it requires building local teams or adapting messaging.

In general, Dutch SaaS firms seem drawn to the smoother sales paths of English-speaking markets. But the data shows that traffic correlates strongly with having “boots on the ground.” Countries like the US and UK don’t just top the traffic charts—they also score highest on local presence, suggesting that real investment pays off.

Here are the patterns that stand out once you split the weighted-traffic scores by company size (10-50, 50-200, 200+ fte) and exclude the “sub-10” micro-firms:

Rank (10-50 bucket)	10-50 fte – Share %	50-200 fte – Share %	200+ fte – Share %	What it suggests
Netherlands	21.6 %	19.1 %	11.8 %	Home market looms largest for smaller firms, but its relative weight drops as companies scale. They diversify traffic sources as they grow.
United States	13.5 %	12.7 %	15.4 %	The US becomes more important for bigger firms; large SaaS scale into the massive US market once the basics at home are covered.
United Kingdom	9.5 %	10.6 %	14.2 %	Similar to the US: the UK’s share rises with size—easy entry for English content and strong SaaS-adoption climate.
Germany	6.1 %	8.8 %	5.3 %	Mid-sized firms lean hardest on Germany; large enterprises appear to prioritise other regions (perhaps APAC/US) once German traffic plateaus.
Canada & Australia	4 – 6 %	6 %	6 – 9 %	“Secondary” English markets gain share as firms surpass 50 fte, riding on the same English-only content.
Spain, Belgium, France	2 – 4 %	4 – 5 %	5 – 8 %	Southern & Western EU markets tick up for 200+-fte firms—after English growth, localisation budgets kick in.
Long-tail Nordics/Baltics	≈2 %	≤2 %	3-4 %	Smaller regions stay niche but hold steady per firm; large players add localised landing pages and paid campaigns.

How important is a local sales team per country?

Highlights:

1. UK & US prefer a local, native approach

2. France values face-to-face—centralized sales teams pay off

High headcount-to-traffic ratio in France reflects cultural norms around in-person deals and Paris-centric business activity.

3. Germany prefers efficiency over proximity

German buyers are willing to handle large deals remotely—local sales presence lags despite strong traffic.

4. Traffic ≠ market demand

English-speaking markets show high traffic, but this often reflects easier discoverability—not necessarily deeper buying intent or stronger sales opportunity.

To understand whether having sales or business development staff on the ground is a success factor in certain markets, I analyzed how many salespeople companies have in specific countries. The goal was to see whether local presence—actual boots on the ground—correlates with traffic and signals that a market demands direct sales engagement.

Of course, this varies by business model. Many SaaS companies, especially those with lower ACVs, rely heavily on inside sales and don’t need local teams. While this dataset isn’t exclusively focused on enterprise SaaS, it still gives useful directional insight into where a local presence appears to matter most.

Ignoring outliers like the Netherlands (as the home market) and very small samples from countries such as the UAE, South Africa, or Malaysia, a clear pattern emerges: the English-speaking countries not only dominate in traffic but also lead in local sales headcount. The United Kingdom actually tops the list, even above the United States, despite the U.S. usually generating more traffic.

For the U.S., this is understandable. Time zone differences make it harder to cover from Europe, and having a local team simply improves responsiveness and deal velocity. But the UK doesn’t have that time zone issue—so its high headcount suggests something else: a cultural preference for local, native English speakers. In my experience, even American accents don’t always land well in the UK. There’s an implicit trust in buying from locals that shouldn’t be underestimated. The same is true in reverse—Americans also tend to prefer buying from Americans.

France also ranks high in headcount relative to traffic, which aligns with cultural expectations. Business in France is often done in-person, over lunch, and most economic activity is centralized in Paris—meaning a local team can be highly efficient without needing national coverage.

Germany, in contrast, shows a lower headcount-to-traffic ratio. That tracks with what I’ve consistently heard and experienced: German buyers are seen as conservative but also highly efficiency-driven. They’re more likely to discuss large deals over video calls than spend time on in-person meetings unless absolutely necessary.

Now, headcount alone isn’t a predictor of success. But it does signal that certain markets are more relationship-driven than others—and therefore more likely to require local sales teams. That said, many companies may misread traffic data. For example, if you see strong inbound traffic from English-speaking markets, it’s tempting to “double down” and build a local team. But this can be misleading. The high traffic might simply reflect how easy you’ve made it for those countries to discover your product—thanks to English-language content—not necessarily a stronger-than-average interest or demand.

In short, local sales presence isn’t always essential—but in some countries, especially the UK and France, it appears to be a competitive advantage. For others, like Germany or the U.S., the decision may depend more on practicalities like time zones and deal complexity than cultural expectations alone.

Country	Firms where the country is in top-9 traffic	…that also list sales headcount there	Ratio (headcount ÷ traffic)
Netherlands	151	138	0.91
United Arab Emirates	3	2	0.67 ¹
United Kingdom	108	27	0.25
United States	122	25	0.20
France	32	5	0.16
Malaysia	7	1	0.14
South Africa	15	2	0.13
Germany	69	8	0.12
Belgium	43	4	0.09
Canada	86	7	0.08
Australia	70	5	0.07
Spain	31	2	0.06
Sweden	14	1	0.07

¹ Small sample size (3 companies); ratio therefore less reliable.

Does website localisation or translation matter?

Highlights

1. Translated websites attract massive traffic gains

French versions drove 7x more visits from France, and German versions 4.5x more from Germany—despite barely affecting ranking position.

2. Assuming “everyone speaks English” limits your reach

Localizing early opens the door to real market interest that English-only sites often miss.

Before analyzing total visit volumes by country, I had looked at how often a country appeared in a company’s top 10 traffic sources, based solely on rank. Interestingly, in that initial ranking-based view, the presence of a translated website—say, in French or German—seemed to make little difference. Whether or not a site was localized didn’t strongly affect its position in a company’s top 10 traffic sources.

However, when shifting the lens to total traffic volume—available in the same dataset—a different picture emerged. Once you compare the number of visits to whether the website was translated, the difference is dramatic. The conclusion is clear: translating your website can lead to significantly higher traffic, even if your relative rank in someone’s top 10 stays the same.

Take French as an example. Companies with a French-language website received 7 times more traffic from France than companies offering only English—even though the average rank of France in their traffic sources was only 0.5 places higher. The relative position barely changed, but the volume exploded.

A similar pattern shows up in Germany. Companies with German translations received 4.5 times more traffic from Germany than English-only ones. Again, no significant bump in relative rank—but a massive lift in total visits.

Spanish was a unique outlier. Companies like Channable, Virtuagym, and Sendcloud have made a clear bet on South America, building local presence and capturing product-market fit. The result: exceptionally high Spanish-language traffic, confirming that real localization—not just translation—can pay off massively in specific regions.

So, what does this tell us?

While we can’t claim direct causation, the correlation between website translation and higher traffic volumes is strong. For SaaS companies, this should be a clear signal: translating your site is an early, high-leverage move. Many startups operate with the assumption that everyone speaks English well enough. But that’s often not true—and even when it is, people still prefer buying in their own language.

Yes, localization brings operational overhead. You’ll need to support and serve that demand. But if you’re getting 4–7 times more traffic from a region, that’s a high-quality problem worth facing.

Language	Site has that language?	Firms with traffic from the language-region	Avg rank (1 best)	Avg visits per company	Take-away
French	Yes (39)	2.37 M total → 60 k per firm	6.26	60 k	French pages ≈ 7× more visits per company than English-only firms, even though rank is only 0.5 lower.
	No (58)	0.47 M total → 8 k per firm	5.74	8 k
German	Yes (26)	0.80 M total → 31 k per firm	4.88	31 k	German pages ≈ 4.5× more visits per company vs. English-only.
	No (46)	0.32 M total → 7 k per firm	4.48	7 k
Spanish	Yes (15)	4.41 M total → 294 k per firm	6.27	294 k	Huge outlier—few firms localise, but those that do pull massive Spanish traffic.
	No (47)	— (no numeric visits recorded)	5.70	n/a

(Netherlands and English omitted—near-universal.)

Does localisation pay off at different company sizes?

Highlights

1. Even small SaaS companies see up to 20x more local traffic with a translated 

2. Translation turns trickles into pipelines

After establishing that website translation is strongly correlated with increased traffic, I wanted to test whether this effect is simply a big-company phenomenon. Naturally, larger companies tend to translate their websites as they grow, so it would follow that they also receive more traffic. To isolate this, I grouped companies by employee size and compared similar companies within the same size buckets.

Even when comparing apples to apples, the results were consistent: translated websites generated significantly more local traffic. For example, in the 10–50 employee range, companies with a French-language website received nearly 20 times more traffic from France than those without. This difference cannot be explained by company size alone.

To put it in perspective: a translated site in this bucket might attract 22,000 visits from France. At a modest conversion rate of 0.5%—meaning one in 200 visitors signs up, requests a demo, or starts a free trial—that would translate to about 110 signups. Meanwhile, companies without a translated site may get only 900 visits, which at the same conversion rate yields just 4 to 5 signups.

This sharp contrast suggests that companies are more likely to invest in making a market work once they see meaningful traffic coming in. And while it’s possible there’s selection bias—perhaps companies only translate after seeing early traction—the consistent pattern across all company sizes is hard to ignore.

The conclusion is not that translation guarantees success, but that a localized website is almost always associated with significantly more traffic from a given country. This holds true across small, mid-sized, and large companies, and challenges the idea that English—or Dutch—is “good enough.”

(French / German / Spanish traffic vs. employee buckets)

Language	Bucket (FTE)	Site translated?	Firms	Avg rank (1 = best)	Avg visits per firm
French	10-50	Yes	23	6.5	22 k
		No	33	5.7	900
	50-200	Yes	11	5.6	50 k
		No	21	5.6	15 k
	200+	Yes	5	6.6	264 k
German	10-50	Yes	17	4.8	20 k
		No	31	4.4	5 k
	50-200	Yes	7	4.7	55 k
		No	11	4.6	11 k
	200+	Yes	2	4.0	113 k
Spanish	10-50	Yes	6	6.3	61 k
		No	30	5.7	— ¹
	50-200	Yes	6	6.0	428 k
		No	11	5.6	—
	200+	Yes	3	6.3	349 k

¹ Almost all “without-Spanish” rows lacked numeric visit counts, so per-firm average can’t be computed.

What we learn

• Localisation impact grows with size. Mid- and late-stage companies that translate see dramatic volume lifts (4-10×) in French, German, Spanish traffic—much larger than the lift for small firms.

• Rank barely moves, volume skyrockets. Across buckets, avg rank changes ≤ 1 spot, but visit volume per firm jumps 5–10× once translated.

• Spanish is a jackpot for larger firms. Few translate, but those that do (esp. 50-200 FTE) bag hundreds of thousands of Spanish visits on average.

• German conversion payoff scales steeply. 200+-FTE firms with German pages average >100 k German visits—10× those without.

Conclusion: Translation matters more for volume than for rank, and its payoff amplifies as companies scale. Small teams can live with English SEO spill-over; larger orgs unlock big traffic growth by localising. 

Methodology

To carry out this analysis, I compiled a dataset of 281 software companies headquartered in the Netherlands. I focused exclusively on growing companies with an increasing headcount, in order to study geographic expansion from a positive, forward-looking perspective. I further refined the dataset to include only B2B software companies, excluding software agencies or B2C players.

Using tools like Clay (integrated with SERPstat), I pulled data on monthly website traffic for each company. For every domain, I retrieved the top 10 traffic source countries along with their respective visit volumes.

In parallel, I analyzed sales headcount per country, using LinkedIn data. I filtered for employees with functions related to sales or business development, then used a formula to count how many such roles were located in each country for each company.

To assess localization efforts, I built an AI query to identify the languages in which each company’s website was available. This analysis focused solely on the website site—not the app interface or automated translation plugins, but actual human-translated pages.

With all this data in place, I began querying the dataset using ChatGPT’s o3 model. I had a list of hypotheses and exploratory questions ready, and as the insights developed, I formulated new questions and ran further analyses.

Once I had compiled all the charts and results, I reviewed the data and wrote the final interpretation, which you’ll find in this report. While ChatGPT supported the data processing and exploration, all interpretations and conclusions are my own.

I’m not claiming direct causation between translated websites and success, but the patterns and correlations revealed in this research are, in my view, both striking and instructive.