Are AI search results different by country? Noticed discrepancies between US and UK

Yes, AI search varies significantly by region. Here’s the breakdown:

Platform availability by region:

Why results differ:

1. Data licensing - Different content deals by region
2. Search index differences - Bing/Google have regional indexes
3. Language - Training data varies by language
4. Regulations - GDPR, etc. affect what’s available
5. Local content - Regional authority signals differ

Strategy implication: You need regional AI visibility strategies, not just localization.

UK-specific observations:

Differences we see:

• Google AI Overviews less prevalent than in US
• Perplexity works similarly to US
• ChatGPT often cites UK sources for UK-specific queries
• Local publications get more weight (BBC, Guardian, etc.)

What works for UK visibility:

1. .co.uk domain - Signals UK relevance
2. UK-specific content - Localized examples, regulations
3. UK authority links - From UK publications
4. British English - Spelling, terminology matters

Common mistake: Assuming US content serves UK. It often gets outranked by local competitors.

Example: US content about employment law gets ignored for UK queries. Need UK employment law content to be cited.

Localization isn’t optional for AI visibility.

Multi-country European perspective:

Each market behaves differently:

GDPR considerations: Some AI features are limited or different due to GDPR compliance. This affects what data feeds AI answers.

Language matters more than you think: German users often get German-language sources even when English content is superior. AI respects language preferences.

Our approach: Primary markets (DE, FR, UK): Full localization Secondary markets: Essential content only Tertiary markets: Monitor for opportunity

Asia-Pacific adds another layer of complexity:

Regional variations:

China is a different world:

• No access to ChatGPT, Perplexity
• Baidu AI, iFlytek, Alibaba Tongyi dominate
• Requires separate strategy entirely

Japan observation: Japanese content strongly preferred. Our English content rarely gets cited for Japan queries even when it’s the best source.

APAC strategy:

1. Treat major markets individually
2. English works for some, not all
3. China needs dedicated approach
4. Monitor locally, not just globally

Latin America perspective:

The landscape:

• AI adoption growing rapidly
• Spanish/Portuguese content gaps
• US English content often cited (lack of alternatives)

Opportunity: Many topics have no good Spanish content. First to create it wins AI visibility.

What we’ve done: Created Spanish versions of our key content. Now the primary source AI cites for our industry in LatAm.

Brazil specific: Portuguese content is even more underserved. Creating PT-BR content has been very effective for AI visibility.

Regional insight: LatAm is an AI visibility opportunity because:

1. Growing AI use
2. Content gaps in Spanish/Portuguese
3. Less competition than US/Europe
4. First-mover advantage available

Beyond translation - true localization matters:

What AI picks up:

• Local examples and case studies
• Region-specific regulations
• Local currency and measurements
• Cultural context

Common mistakes:

• Translate only (not localize)
• Use US examples for other markets
• Ignore local regulations
• Wrong date formats (!)

AI prefers: Content that feels native to the region, not translated from US.

How to do it right:

1. Local writers or reviewers
2. Region-specific examples
3. Local authority citations
4. Proper localization (not just translation)

AI seems to detect and prefer genuinely localized content over machine-translated content.

How to actually monitor global AI visibility:

Challenges:

• AI results vary by location
• VPNs can be unreliable for testing
• Manual testing doesn’t scale

Solutions:

1. Proxy services - Query from different regions
2. Local team testing - Have regional colleagues check
3. Monitoring tools - Some support multi-region tracking
4. Periodic audits - Quarterly deep dives per region

What to track per region:

• Citation frequency
• Which sources get cited (competitors?)
• Language-specific queries
• Platform availability

Reporting approach: Global dashboard with regional breakdowns. Compare visibility scores across markets.

Am I Cited can help track across regions - set up monitoring from different geographic perspectives.

This thread confirmed what I suspected and gave me a framework. Summary:

Key findings:

1. AI search definitely varies by region
2. Content availability and language drive differences
3. Local authority matters for local queries
4. China is a completely separate ecosystem

Our strategy going forward:

Tier 1 (US, UK, Germany):

• Dedicated localized content
• Local authority building
• Frequent monitoring

Tier 2 (France, Spain, Australia):

• Essential content localized
• Quarterly monitoring

Tier 3 (Other markets):

• Opportunistic localization
• Annual review

Immediate actions:

1. Set up regional monitoring
2. Audit content localization quality
3. Identify gaps vs. local competitors
4. Prioritize by market importance

Key insight: “Global AI visibility” doesn’t exist - only regional AI visibility. Plan accordingly.

Thanks everyone for the international perspectives!