How we compare
Every consent tool stops somewhere. Here's where they stop, and where we do.
CookieYes, Cookiebot, Complianz, Osano and Enzuzo are all real products and some of them are better than us at things. No tool blocks everything, everywhere. The honest ones tell you that.
Competitor pricing checked 2026-08-08 against their published rates, except where a panel shows its own date. Where a company publishes an agency or partner discount, that's the price we use — not their list price.
Consentinel vs CookieYes
GDPR cookie consent by CookieYesCookieYes is one of the most-installed cookie banners, especially on WordPress. It's good at European-style consent notices, keeping a consent log, and a tidy banner. It spots trackers by matching them against a list of companies it knows, then sends consent signals to the ones it recognizes.
Where it's strong
- Works on nearly every website platform, with a solid free plan
- European consent notices and record-keeping done properly
- A large list of known tracking companies, kept reasonably current
- Google's consent setting and “don’t sell my data” signals both supported
Where it stops
- It works from a list. A tracker that isn't on the list doesn't exist as far as it's concerned — which is exactly how a screen recorder got past a scanner on our own site
- Their published material describes browser-based consent signals. We haven't tested how their WordPress version behaves on the server, so we don't claim anything about it
- California wiretapping law isn't what it was built for. There's no per-tracker output aimed at it
- Per-site pricing adds up across a client portfolio, even with the agency discount
- Their published material doesn't describe visiting a site twice to check what actually loaded before consent. That's a gap in what they claim, not something we've tested
| Dimension | Consentinel | CookieYes |
|---|---|---|
| How it finds trackers | Watches what actually runs | Matches against a list |
| Independent record of what loaded | Two visits, locked once written | A dashboard status |
| Output aimed at US wiretapping claims | Built in, per tracker | Not what it's for |
| What it can block | Everywhere in the browser; on WordPress also on the server | Browser only |
| On WordPress | Removes scripts your other plugins added, before the page is sent | Can't reach scripts added on the server |
| Google's consent setting | Yes, every plan | Yes, every plan |
| Browser “don’t sell my data” signal (GPC) | Yes — every plan, no setting, whatever your banner is set to | Pro and above. Not on Free or Basic.1 |
| 25 sites | $99/mo (Agency) | $150/mo on Basic — but GPC needs Pro, which is $375/mo2 |
1 From CookieYes's published plan comparison, checked September 1, 2026. Their Do Not Track support is on every tier and is a different signal.
2 CookieYes bills per domain: Basic $10, Pro $25. For 25 sites that is $250 and $625 at list, or $150 and $375 at their published 40% agency partner rate. List pricing checked September 1, 2026; the partner rate is from the August 8, 2026 survey.
Checked 2026-09-01. Plan pricing and the feature comparison were read from CookieYes's own pricing page on this date. The 40% agency partner rate is from the August 8, 2026 survey.
Choose us if California wiretapping exposure is what worries you, if you look after more than a handful of client sites, or if you want an independent check that finds what a list can't. Choose CookieYes if a European consent notice and a good free banner are the whole job — it's a good product at that job.
Consentinel vs Cookiebot
Cookiebot by Usercentrics (Cybot A/S)Cookiebot (owned by Usercentrics) is enterprise consent software with an automatic cookie scanner that sorts tags by purpose and writes your cookie declaration for you. It's used across large European websites and it's serious about documentation.
Where it's strong
- An automatic scanner that produces a proper cookie declaration
- Enterprise-grade consent management
- Strong European documentation and audit trail
- Google's consent setting and “don’t sell my data” both supported
Where it stops
- Their material describes a list-driven scanner. We haven't tested it against unknown trackers, so we don't claim what it misses
- A browser-based banner. Their material doesn't describe blocking on the server on WordPress
- US wiretapping exposure isn't mapped
- Per-site pricing reaches enterprise budgets quickly across multiple sites
- A published limit of roughly 350 pages per site on the standard plans
- No independent two-visit record showing trackers stayed blocked
| Dimension | Consentinel | Cookiebot |
|---|---|---|
| How it finds trackers | Watches what actually runs | A list, sorted by purpose |
| Independent record of what loaded | Two visits, locked once written | An audit trail of consent |
| Output aimed at US wiretapping claims | Built in, per tracker | Not what it's for |
| How deep it checks | Up to 4,000 pages per site on Scale | About 350 pages per site on standard plans |
| What it can block | Everywhere in the browser; on WordPress also on the server | Browser only |
| Google's consent setting | Yes, every plan | Documented as a standard integration |
| Browser “don’t sell my data” signal (GPC) | Yes — every plan, no setting, whatever your banner is set to | Honored, but what it does depends on your banner setup1 |
| 25 sites | $99/mo (Agency) | ~$405/mo for 25 domains (~$16/domain), enterprise tier above that2 |
1 Their support documentation lists four banner configurations in which GPC changes behavior, then states: “For all other banner setups, the GPC signal has no impact on the Cookiebot consent or banner.” They also state they do not honor Do Not Track. Checked September 1, 2026; we could not load their pricing page, so no claim is made here about which plans include what.
2 $405 is the 25-domain total, not a per-domain rate. Arithmetic from their published per-domain pricing, not a quote we have been given.
Choose us if you need output aimed at US wiretapping claims, multi-site pricing that doesn't need an enterprise budget, or an independent record of what actually loaded. Choose Cookiebot if you're a European enterprise already inside the Usercentrics stack.
Consentinel vs Complianz
Complianz GDPR — WordPress-native consent (Complianz B.V.)Complianz is the WordPress consent plugin most WordPress developers reach for first. It works with caching plugins, does per-region banners, and hooks into WordPress properly — closer to the metal on WordPress than CookieYes or Cookiebot. It's good at what it does.
Where it's strong
- Built for WordPress: works with caching and WordPress's own systems
- Different consent rules by region
- Built-in cookie scan and cookie policy generator
- Mature, well-maintained, very widely installed
- Substantially cheaper than us across a portfolio
Where it stops
- Their material describes a list-based cookie scan. Finding unknown trackers isn't something it claims to do
- US wiretapping exposure isn't addressed
- It scans from inside the site being scanned. There's no separate checker running on a schedule
- No independent two-visit record of what loaded before consent
| Dimension | Consentinel | Complianz |
|---|---|---|
| How it finds trackers | Watches what actually runs | A list, plus WordPress's own hooks |
| Independent record of what loaded | Two visits, locked once written | A scan log |
| Output aimed at US wiretapping claims | Built in, per tracker | Not what it's for |
| Runs its own checks | Yes — on our systems, on a schedule | No — scans from inside the site |
| On WordPress | Removes scripts your other plugins added; scripts written straight into the page with one extra setting on | Partly, through WordPress's hooks |
| Google's consent setting | Yes, every plan | Yes, every plan |
| Browser “don’t sell my data” signal (GPC) | Yes — every plan, no setting, whatever your banner is set to | Supported, behind a setting you switch on1 |
| 25 sites | $99/mo (Agency) | ~$33/mo — about a third of our price |
1 Their documentation routes it through Complianz > Wizard > General > Security & Consent, as the option “Respect Do Not Track and Global Privacy Control” — one toggle covering both signals. Checked September 1, 2026. We make no claim about which plans include it.
Checked 2026-09-01. Plan pricing and the GPC documentation were read on this date. The 25-site figure is their list rate; their site currently shows a promotional price below it.
Complianz is cheaper than us and we're not going to pretend otherwise. If you run WordPress sites, want European-style regional banners, and the limits don't affect you, it's a good plugin at a price we don't try to match.
What you don't get is a checker that visits every site on a schedule from outside, a scan that finds companies no list knows about, output aimed at US wiretapping claims, or an independent locked record of what actually loaded before consent. Complianz scans from inside the site it's scanning. We watch from outside, in a real browser, twice.
Choose us when you need to show someone what happened, or when the tags you're worried about are the ones a plugin writes straight into the page. Choose Complianz when a good European banner on WordPress is the job and $33 is the budget.
Consentinel vs Osano
Osano — privacy operations platformOsano is an enterprise privacy platform, and the one competitor selling the same idea we are: hold tags until consent, keep a consent log, aim it at US litigation risk rather than European paperwork. Their consent log is real. So is ours. That's standard now for both of us, and we should stop implying otherwise.
Where we differ
- Showing your work. Osano sorts trackers into categories. Their published material doesn't describe visiting a site twice to check that blocking actually worked. We haven't tested their product, so that's a gap in what they claim rather than something we've measured — and it's the question worth asking them.
- Watching rather than listing. Our check surfaces companies that aren't on any list, including ours, in a bucket labelled “unknown companies we saw.”
- Which tracker caused which cookie. Not just that the cookie exists. A demand letter that dumps a raw cookie list is counting on that confusion.
- Price shape. Their entry pricing runs about $66 per site, with visitor limits. Ours is $9.50 per site on Pro, with unlimited visitors.
| Dimension | Consentinel | Osano |
|---|---|---|
| How it finds trackers | Watches what actually runs | Sorts trackers into categories |
| Independent record of what loaded | Two visits, locked once written | Not described in their published material |
| Consent log | Yes | Yes — standard for both of us |
| Which tracker caused which cookie | Yes | Not described in their published material |
| Price shape | $9.50 per site on Pro, unlimited visitors | About $66 per site, with visitor limits |
Everything on this panel comes from Osano's own published pricing and documentation. We've read their material; we haven't used their product. We don't claim anything about how it works internally that we haven't seen.
Checked 2026-07-23. Desk research on this date; pricing re-checked 2026-08-08.
Osano is the closest competitor to what we actually do, and we'd rather say so than pretend the field is empty. They market the same angle we do — holding tags until consent, and a consent log aimed at demand letters. This ground is contested, not ours by default.
What still separates us is showing the work. Their published material describes sorting trackers into categories; it doesn't describe a two-visit check showing the blocking worked. Our check also surfaces companies no list knows about, including our own, and tells you which tracker set which cookie.
Their platform is much broader than consent — data mapping, vendor risk, assessments — and that whole program is a different purchase from ours. Worth knowing which one you're actually shopping for.
Consentinel vs Enzuzo
Enzuzo — consent management and privacy workflowsEnzuzo is a consent and privacy-workflow platform priced close to us and, like us, positioned on US privacy law rather than European notice — their own product page describes blocking scripts until consent and timestamping every decision, and names CIPA directly. Their product is broader than ours: alongside consent they handle data subject requests, carry IAB TCF, support Microsoft's consent mode, and generate more kinds of legal document than we do.
Where we differ
- The “don’t sell my data” signal is a third-tier feature. Their plan matrix puts Global Privacy Control on Pro and above — not on Free, Starter or Growth. Every Consentinel plan honors it, including the free one. On a product positioned around US privacy law, that is worth knowing before you pick a tier.
- Visitor caps. Their plans are capped at 5,000 to 30,000 unique monthly visitors depending on tier. Every Consentinel plan has unlimited visitors. On a client portfolio the visitor cap is usually what you hit first, and it is the number that decides your real price.
- There is no published price for 25 sites. Their largest published tier covers 10 domains; extra domains, and all four of the features they group under “agency”, sit in Enterprise at a custom quote. Our Agency plan is self-serve at 25 sites with the overage rate printed on the pricing page.
- Proof. Their material describes blocking and timestamping. It does not describe an independent before-and-after run that checks the blocking actually worked. We haven't tested their product, so that is an absence in their published claims rather than a tested absence — and it is the question worth asking them.
- What we won't say about our own record. Their page states that the consent record “is what any CIPA defense rests on.” Ours doesn't make that claim about the Privacy Defense Report, because our counsel asked us not to. Same category, different line about what a record establishes — draw your own conclusion, but know that the line exists.
| Dimension | Consentinel | Enzuzo |
|---|---|---|
| Google's consent setting | Yes, every plan | Yes, every plan |
| Browser “don’t sell my data” signal (GPC) | Yes — every plan, no setting, whatever your banner is set to | Pro and above. Not on Free, Starter or Growth.1 |
| Visitor limits | Unlimited visitors, every plan | 5,000 to 30,000 unique monthly visitors by tier |
| Pages checked | 100 on Free, 600 on Pro and Agency, 4,000 on Scale — per domain, per crawl | Unlimited, every tier2 |
| Independent record of what loaded | Two visits, locked once written | Consent logs, described as audit-ready |
| Data subject requests (DSARs) | Not part of Consentinel | Yes, from the free tier up |
| Generates your legal documents | Cookie policy, built from your own crawl rather than a questionnaire | Privacy policy, terms, EULA and ecommerce policies |
| 25 sites | $99/mo (Agency) | No published price — their largest published tier is 10 domains3 |
1 From Enzuzo's published plan comparison. Their Do Not Track support starts a tier earlier and is a different signal.
2 Their scan and our crawl are not the same operation — ours loads each page in a real browser twice, once refusing consent and once granting it — but on page count alone they publish no limit and we do.
3 Enzuzo's published tiers run Free, Starter, Growth and Pro at 1, 1, 4 and 10 domains. Above that is Enterprise, quoted on a demo call, and their agency page publishes no rate.
Every figure on this panel comes from Enzuzo's own published pricing and product pages on the date shown. We have not tested their product and assert nothing about its internals. Their agency page publishes no rates, so no agency price is quoted here.
Checked 2026-09-01. Their pricing page, plan feature matrix, agency page and consent-management product page were read on this date. We have not tested the product.
Enzuzo is the second competitor aiming at the same law we are, and the one closest to us on price — we'd rather say that than pretend the field is empty. They cover ground we don't: data subject requests and Microsoft's consent mode aren't part of Consentinel, and the European advertising framework is a deliberate exclusion we explain on our coverage page rather than a gap we're quiet about. What we're built for is the client portfolio — unlimited visitors, a published price at 25 sites, the opt-out signal on every plan, and a check that visits twice to show the blocking held.
Competitor information is drawn from publicly published pricing and documentation, verified on the date shown, and may have changed since. Consentinel is compliance tooling, not legal advice.