Ask “does [your tool] work in China?” and the answer you usually get is about speed: a latency number, a loading screen, a note that the dashboard opens. That answer is measuring the wrong thing. Whether you may lawfully run a tool for a China audience is not a reachability question — it is a compliance question, and it turns on where the data lives, whether the public-facing service is filed, and what licences the activity needs.

So we did the systematic version. Across 763 of the SaaS services teams actually run — hosting, CMSes, databases, analytics, CDNs, identity, payments, learning, HR, security and more — we checked each one against its own public documentation (where it hosts, whether it has a mainland-China region, what data it collects) and against China’s own law. This is, as far as we know, the largest first-party compliance survey of its kind. Here is what it found.

What we found across all 763 servicesServicesShare
Hold personal data that is a cross-border transfer for Chinese users (PIPL)75599%
Bring a data-residency / localization question into scope (PIPL Art. 40 / CSL Art. 39)71794%
Pull an ICP filing (备案) into the decision68189.3%
Run with no mainland-China region for the core service63383%
Carry a licensing gate beyond ICP (payments / value-added telecom / 网络视听 / surveying…)31341%
Have no self-serve in-country path for the core service — the honest answer is not as-is60178.8%
Have a genuine in-country lever (self-host, sovereign region, or a mainland region)16221.2%

Across ~763 of the SaaS tools teams actually run, we checked each one against its own documentation and China’s own law. The pattern is almost universal: the service is reachable, but it runs outside mainland China, it has no ICP filing to give you, and for your Chinese users the data it holds is a cross-border transfer under PIPL. “Does it work in China” is a compliance question — and for most tools, the honest answer is not as-is.

What we actually checked (and what we left out)

This is the half a speed test cannot do, so it is worth being precise about the method.

For every service we read the vendor’s own words first — its security page, trust centre, data-processing agreement, sub-processor list, regions/locations documentation — to establish three facts: where it hosts, whether it operates a mainland-China region, and what personal data it holds. We then read those facts against the Chinese instruments that actually govern the question:

  • ICP filing (备案) — the Measures for the Administration of Internet Information Services (State Council Order No. 292) and the Measures for Filing (MIIT Order No. 33): any public-facing service to mainland users must be filed, on a mainland hosting resource, by a mainland entity.
  • PIPL Articles 38–40 — moving Chinese users’ personal information to an offshore service is a cross-border transfer (数据出境): notice, a lawful basis, a separate consent where consent is the basis, and one transfer mechanism all fall on you, the handler.
  • Cybersecurity Law Article 39 (formerly Article 37) and PIPL Article 40 — for a critical-information-infrastructure operator or a large-volume handler, personal information generated in the mainland must be stored in the mainland.
  • Sector licences on top of ICP where they apply — a payments licence for handling mainland payments, a value-added telecom licence for real-time communications, a 信息网络传播视听节目许可证 for delivering audio-visual programmes, a surveying qualification for maps, and so on.

Where a vendor’s documentation was silent, we inferred from its infrastructure and said so, and framed every page as a risk picture to settle with counsel — never legal advice. We deliberately excluded dead or discontinued products and pure network-workaround “solutions,” and we never name a customer: the anonymised unit is the tool, never the company that uses it. Each of the 763 services below links to its own page, where the specific evidence and the verbatim source quote live.

A note on what this is not: it is not a ranking, and it is not “these tools are bad.” Most of them are excellent at their job. The finding is narrower and more useful — that “works in China” has a compliance meaning most stacks have never been checked against.

The one pattern: two doors, almost everywhere

Strip away the categories and the same two doors decide nearly every case.

Door one — where the data rests. 99% of the services hold personal data that, for your Chinese users, is a cross-border transfer under PIPL the moment it leaves the mainland; 83% operate no mainland-China region for the core service, so that data has nowhere in-country to rest; and 94% pull a data-residency or localization question into scope. The service being reachable from Shanghai tells you nothing about whether its data was ever allowed to sit where it sits.

Door two — whether the public service is filed and licensed. 89% pull an ICP filing into the decision, and 41% carry a further licence gate beyond ICP — payments, value-added telecom, audio-visual, surveying. A foreign vendor generally cannot hold these for you.

Put together, 601 of the 763 (79%) have no self-serve in-country path for the core service — the honest answer for them is not as-is. That is not a reachability failure. It is a residency-and-filing fact that a “can I open the dashboard” check never surfaces, and it is exactly the half competitors who measure only speed or load-completion cannot answer.

By category

The pattern holds across the stack, but the shape of the fix differs by layer. Hosting, eCommerce, streaming video and customer-experience tools are almost entirely offshore-only. Databases, DevOps, identity and the open-source runtimes are where in-country levers actually exist. The full breakdown:

CategoryCheckedNo in-country path (offshore)Has an in-country lever
Hosting82784
CMS574413
Analytics372413
Security362412
DevOps31724
eCommerce27261
Data and Analytics27189
Communications23203
AI and ML20164
CDN19154
Streaming Video19190
Identity and Collaboration19127
WebOps17143
Forms, Surveys & Interactive15141
Learning Management Systems (LMS)13130
Email Marketing13130
Databases1376
Advertising12102
CRM1284
Payments1293
Customer Experience12120
Social Media11110
Backend and Low-Code Platforms1183
HCM1174
Maps and Location1082
Reviews and Loyalty1091
Procurement1082
Collaboration and Productivity981
ERP963
Finance and Accounting990
Enterprise Content Management880
Translation and Localization880
E-Signature770
Surveys and Feedback770
Identity Verification770
Governance Risk and Compliance770
Voice and Speech770
Document and Vision AI761
Collaboration and Enablement770
Backend Frameworks and Runtimes707
Cloud Platforms734
Feature Flags and CDP660
Push and Realtime Messaging660
Billing, Tax and Logistics660
Marketing and Audience Data651
Identity and Access Management624
Forms550
Site Search541
Search and Vector550
IT Service Management514
Digital Experience and Commerce541
DNS431
Other440
Testing422

A few categories are worth calling out. Hosting and eCommerce are where the ICP door bites hardest — the public store or site is itself the filed service, and a global edge, however fast, is not an ICP-filed mainland presence. Streaming video, learning, customer-experience and finance are almost uniformly offshore with a second licence gate (audio-visual, payments) on top. And DevOps, databases, identity and the backend runtimes are the categories where a real in-country path exists most often — because the software is something you can run yourself.

The honest exceptions

A survey that found every tool non-compliant would be a sales pitch, not research. It did not. 162 of the 763 (21%) have a genuine in-country lever, and the distinction matters:

  • Self-hostable software (10%). Open-source databases, search engines, CI runners, the backend runtimes and frameworks — software you deploy on infrastructure you control. Run it in a mainland data centre and the data stays resident; the lever is real. These are the Backend Frameworks and Runtimes, the self-managed databases and much of DevOps.
  • A genuine mainland region or sovereign partition (12%). A handful of providers run a real China region — AWS China (operated by Sinnet/NWCD), Azure China (21Vianet), and the domestic Chinese clouds. Here residency is satisfied by design — but, crucially, in-country infrastructure is not automatic compliance. You still owe your own ICP filing, the mainland entity it requires, and MLPS obligations as operator; and if you replicate that data back to an offshore HQ, that round-trip is itself a PIPL cross-border transfer.
  • Assets that hold no user data. A pure code, font or library CDN does not hold your users’ personal information at all; its only China question is in-country delivery, and the ICP duty sits with the site that embeds it — not with the CDN.

In other words: the answer is not uniformly “no.” It is “no as-is for most, with a real in-country path for a fifth — and the path is different for a self-hostable database than for a cloud-only video API.” That is the distinction this survey exists to draw, tool by tool.

Where 21YunBox fits

21YunBox is not a replacement for any of these tools. It is the compliant China-delivery overlay that sits in front of the stack you already run: an ICP-filed, in-country presence; PIPL-aware handling of visitor and user data at the border; and compliant in-country delivery — with the rest of your stack left exactly where it runs. For the 79% with no in-country path, that is how a China-facing surface becomes lawful without a re-platform. For the 21% with a lever, it is how the lever is actually stood up — the ICP, the entity, the residency design, the back-haul governance — rather than left as a line in a trust centre. We never use or suggest circumvention of any kind.

The full reference: all 763 services

Every service we checked, grouped by category, each linking to its own page with the verbatim vendor source and the specific compliance reading. “No in-country path” means the core service is offshore-only; “in-country lever” means a self-host, sovereign-region or mainland-region path exists (which still requires the ICP, entity and residency work). This is a risk picture to confirm with counsel, not legal advice.

Hosting — 82 services
CMS — 57 services
Analytics — 37 services
Security — 36 services
DevOps — 31 services
eCommerce — 27 services
Data and Analytics — 27 services
Communications — 23 services
AI and ML — 20 services
CDN — 19 services
Streaming Video — 19 services
Identity and Collaboration — 19 services
WebOps — 17 services
Forms, Surveys & Interactive — 15 services
Learning Management Systems (LMS) — 13 services
Email Marketing — 13 services
Databases — 13 services
Advertising — 12 services
CRM — 12 services
Payments — 12 services
Customer Experience — 12 services
Social Media — 11 services
Backend and Low-Code Platforms — 11 services
HCM — 11 services
Maps and Location — 10 services
Reviews and Loyalty — 10 services
Procurement — 10 services
Collaboration and Productivity — 9 services
ERP — 9 services
Finance and Accounting — 9 services
Enterprise Content Management — 8 services
Translation and Localization — 8 services
E-Signature — 7 services
Surveys and Feedback — 7 services
Identity Verification — 7 services
Governance Risk and Compliance — 7 services
Voice and Speech — 7 services
Document and Vision AI — 7 services
Collaboration and Enablement — 7 services
Backend Frameworks and Runtimes — 7 services
  • Bun — self-host / in-country lever
  • Deno — self-host / in-country lever
  • Django — self-host / in-country lever
  • Laravel — self-host / in-country lever
  • Node.js — self-host / in-country lever
  • Ruby on Rails — self-host / in-country lever
  • Spring Boot — mainland region exists — not automatic compliance
Cloud Platforms — 7 services
Feature Flags and CDP — 6 services
Push and Realtime Messaging — 6 services
Billing, Tax and Logistics — 6 services
Marketing and Audience Data — 6 services
Identity and Access Management — 6 services
  • BeyondTrust — mainland region exists — not automatic compliance
  • Cisco Duo — no in-country path
  • Delinea — mainland region exists — not automatic compliance
  • ForgeRock — mainland region exists — not automatic compliance
  • Keycloak — mainland region exists — not automatic compliance
  • Saviynt — no in-country path
Forms — 5 services
Site Search — 5 services
Search and Vector — 5 services
IT Service Management — 5 services
Digital Experience and Commerce — 5 services
DNS — 4 services
Other — 4 services
Testing — 4 services
Fonts — 3 services
Design and Creative — 3 services
Global Accelerator — 2 services
Virtualization and EUC — 2 services
  • Nutanix — mainland region exists — not automatic compliance
  • VMware Horizon — mainland region exists — not automatic compliance
Website Builders — 1 service
  • Framer — no in-country path

Does your stack appear above? Our China compliance team will map your specific tools — what must stay resident, what may lawfully leave, where an ICP filing and licence apply, and the in-country delivery path — for your entity and your China audience.

Get a free compliance assessment →

Methodology: 763 services with a published “Does it work in China?” compliance assessment as of 2026-10-15, each verified against the vendor’s own documentation and the Chinese instruments cited above; signals are extracted from each assessment and counted programmatically. Figures move as the corpus grows. This is a compliance risk picture, not legal advice — confirm your obligations, which turn on your data volumes and your role, with qualified counsel.