As of 30 Oct 2026, the panel rates consentmanager 2.5/5 and Didomi 3.5/5 in Consent Management (CMP). Weighted by what each judge cares about, 0 of the 6 judges pick consentmanager and 6 pick Didomi. consentmanager scores higher on 1 of 6 criteria (European sovereignty). Didomi scores higher on 5 of 6 criteria (Scanning & cookie classification, Consent records & proof, Banner & choice architecture, plus 2 more). Provenance — consentmanager: EU-Made; Didomi: EU-Made. Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made.
Didomi is ahead on six of seven criteria — banner and choice 7.5 to 5.2, prior blocking 5.8 to 4.2, scanning and classification 7.8 to 4.2, consent records 7.7 to 4.3, standards and platforms 7.0 to 5.5, each 6 judges to 0, and pricing transparency 2.5 to 0.7 with 5 leans and 1 tie; pricing is not weighted in Didomi's verdicts. Sovereignty is the exception: 6 judges to 0 lean consentmanager, 5.8 versus 4.0. consentmanager's attributes list data residency and subprocessor exposure as EU only, and the verdict documents PlusServer GmbH hosting in Cologne, a data processing agreement and named subprocessors with countries; Didomi's attributes list both as unknown, and its verdict names Amazon Web Services LLC at a Seattle address as host of the vendor's own website. Weighted totals per judge span 6.3 to 7.0 for Didomi and 4.3 to 5.1 for consentmanager. The benches split by criterion, not by judge.
Choose consentmanager if
You need consent data to stay in the EU: consentmanager's data residency attribute reads EU only, while Didomi's reads unknown.
Your vendor review requires subprocessor exposure within the EU only: that attribute reads EU only for consentmanager and unknown for Didomi.
You must sign a data processing agreement with the vendor as processor and review named subprocessors with countries and safeguards before rollout: the verdict documents both for consentmanager.
Your auditors want the hosting entity and corporate chain on record: the verdict names a Swedish entity under Italian parent iubenda and PlusServer GmbH hosting in Cologne.
Choose Didomi if
You need scanning behind logins, from a chosen country, or across up to 20,000 pages: scanning and classification is 7.8 to 4.2, 6 judges to 0 for Didomi.
Your legal team must pull the exact consent UI a user agreed to on any date: Didomi's versions-and-proofs module backs consent records at 7.7 to 4.3.
You want a one-click deny route beside accept and agree/disagree buttons that cannot be disabled: banner and choice is 7.5 to 5.2 for Didomi.
Your stack leans on standards and platform support: standards and platforms is 7.0 to 5.5 in Didomi's favor.
You prioritize prior blocking ahead of consent: it is 5.8 to 4.2 for Didomi, with the verdict noting manual per-vendor Google Tag Manager setup at its low end.
Read this comparison as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The Data Protection Officer
External DPO for a dozen mid-sized companies, two of which received a letter from a state supervisory authority about their cookie banner last year. Wants reject on the first layer, nothing loaded before the click, a consent log that shows which banner version each visitor saw, a cookie list that matches the site, and a DPA and subprocessor list that keep visitor data in the EU.
consentmanager
Didomi
This judge's pick
Criterion by criterion
Banner & choice architecture
consentmanager
The privacy policy documents consent per purpose and per third-party provider, that visitors can change their settings later, and that consent is asked again twelve months after the original choice; the captured material also names GDPR, German TDDDG, Swiss, US-state and Canadian law alongside help articles on a reject link and on custom designs and texts. What matters most to me — reject as an equally prominent choice on the first layer, language coverage and any consent-rate reporting — we found no public information on, so this sits below the level I would require after a supervisory authority letter.
Didomi
The captured help-centre pages describe a first layer where disagree is as easy as agree — one-click "Disagree and close" beside "Agree and close", with "Agree to all" and "Disagree to all" buttons enabled by default and unable to be disabled — and withdrawal required to be as easy as the first choice. Consent per vendor, geo-targeted banners per country, 45+ languages with automatic detection, A/B testing and consent analytics are all documented; we found no public information on a stated accessibility level for the banner itself or templates mapped to named regulator guidance, which keeps me short of the top.
Prior blocking & script control
consentmanager
The help centre documents automatic blocking of codes and cookies in a developer reference, together with a getting-started guide on blocking third-party codes and cookies. We found no public information on placeholders for embedded videos or maps, tag-manager or server-side integration, or any documented way to test that nothing loads before consent — precisely the evidence I ask clients for before a regulator asks them.
Didomi
Tag gating is documented as a Google Tag Manager integration the site owner wires per vendor, with its limits explained — the warning that combining triggers drops cookies without consent, and the single-page-app limitation with a workaround — while the compliance monitor treats trackers fired before consent as violations and sends weekly alerts on misfiring tags, which is a real way to check nothing loads too early. We found no public information on an automatic blocking mode or maintained content blockers with placeholders; the captured video page only recommends collecting consent before launching embedded videos.
Scanning & cookie classification
consentmanager
A cookie scanner appears in the module list with its own feature pages, and the help centre documents how to classify unknown cookies. We found no public information on scheduled rescans, a maintained database classifying services by purpose, provider and lifetime, or a cookie declaration that updates itself from the scan, which is what keeps a site's cookie list true to what it actually sets.
Didomi
The compliance monitor is documented in depth: a bot that scrapes the site, scans up to 20,000 pages, can scan behind logins and from a chosen country, categorises cookies, pixels and local storage into first- and third-party groups, runs on monthly or weekly schedules by tier, and alerts on new tracker activity, with audit-ready JSON exports and a time-stamped audit trail. We found no public information on a maintained classification database with purposes, providers and lifetimes, or a cookie declaration that updates itself in several languages.
Consent records & proof
consentmanager
A consent log protocol with audit trail is documented as a developer reference in both English and German, and the privacy policy states that visitors are asked again twelve months after their settings. We found no public information on what each record contains, how long consent records are kept, whether the banner version shown is preserved with the record, or export of the log — the exact proof my clients' authority demanded of them.
Didomi
The versions and proofs module keeps every published notice version and lets legal teams pull "the exact UI a user agreed to, on any date" for audits, regulator inquiries and DSARs — precisely the banner-version trail I need when an authority asks which notice a visitor saw — with proof files attachable to consent events and retrievable through an API, and cross-device and cross-domain consent recorded. We found no public information on a stated retention for the consent log itself, a consent ID the visitor can look up, or tamper-evidence of the log.
Frameworks, signals & platforms
consentmanager
Google certification is stated, feature pages cover Google Consent Mode v2 and IAB TCF for publishers with configuration guides for TCF v2, and the module list includes mobile app consent and connected TV consent. We found no public information on a registered IAB CMP ID, plugins for named CMS or shop systems, an API, or signals such as GPP or Microsoft UET, which caps the framework picture at the middle tier.
Didomi
The captured pages show IAB TCF v2.2, Google Consent Mode v2 with Google certified-partner status covering web, apps and connected TV, Microsoft UET consent mode, AWS consent mode, GPP and GPC, a documented REST API, and several domains manageable from one account. We found no public information on a registered IAB Europe CMP ID, basic versus advanced Consent Mode behaviour, CMS plugins for systems like WordPress or Shopify, or agency accounts managing client sites.
European sovereignty
consentmanager
The chain is largely European: consentmanager AB in Stockholm operates the platform with sales through Hamburg and Paris companies under Italian parent iubenda, hosting is named as PlusServer GmbH in Cologne, a data processing agreement is concluded with every customer, the vendor states it processes no customer data for its own purposes, and named subprocessors carry locations and safeguards such as standard contractual clauses for Stripe. The captured pages do not confirm where the banner script is served from or where consent logs and scan results are stored, and we found no public information on security certifications, so I stop short of the higher marks.
Didomi
The contracting entity is proven European — Didomi SAS, 137 Boulevard de Sébastopol in Paris, registered with the Paris RCS under number B 831 722 756 — and the security page states ISO 27001 certification, encrypted point-in-time backups and replication across at least two physically separated data centres, with SCC and adequacy safeguards named in the privacy policy. But the captured pages state nothing about where the banner script and consent logs are served or stored, list no subprocessors and show no published data processing agreement; the legal notice names Amazon Web Services LLC at a Seattle address as host of the vendor's website.
Pricing transparency
consentmanager
We found no public information on pricing: the captured pricing page gave us no figure for any tier, domain, page-view limit or add-on, so no annual cost can be computed from the public material. This criterion therefore does not count toward my verdict.
Didomi
All three tiers on the offers page — Essential, Advanced and Premium — are positioned with their scope but every one says "Contact us"; a free compliance monitoring scan exists, and tier inclusions such as unlimited domains based on monthly unique visitors, scan frequency and seat counts are published without a single figure. We found no public information on any price, visitor band, minimum term, overage or setup fee, so a buyer cannot compute an annual cost from the captured pages.
Sovereignty, side by side
Dimension
consentmanager
Didomi
Legal entity
Not determined
Not determined
Hosting location
Not determined
Not determined
Hosting options
Not determined
Not determined
Open source
Not determined
Not determined
Data processing agreement
Not determined
Not determined
Transfer impact assessment
Not determined
Not determined
Facts, side by side
Only facts both products carry under the same definition — anything else would not be a fair row.
As of 30 Oct 2026, the panel rates Didomi higher: 3.5/5 against 2.5/5. Weighted by what each judge cares about, 0 of the 6 judges pick consentmanager and 6 pick Didomi. Which one fits depends on the criteria that matter to you; the table on this page shows both side by side, and each judge’s reading has its own page. Both were scored by the same AI bench under the same rubric, from public evidence only, as the methodology describes.
Is consentmanager or Didomi European?
consentmanager is European (EU-Made). Didomi is European (EU-Made). Provenance is read from each company’s own legal pages: who builds it and who owns it.
Do consentmanager and Didomi have a free plan?
As of 30 Oct 2026, Didomi’s own pages state a free plan; consentmanager’s pages as captured do not. Each product page links the pricing page it was read from.