whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Consent Management (CMP)

Complianz

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Complianz B.V. · complianz.io

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

Complianz: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Complianz: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds. The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.

Complianz at a glance

Vendor
Complianz B.V.
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates Complianz 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. Complianz — Complianz B.V. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 29 Oct 2026 to 1 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 30 Oct 2026. all sources

Complianz alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The In-House Lawyer

Weighted verdict

In-house counsel at a retailer with shops in Germany, France and Austria, who has read the court decisions on missing reject buttons and the regulators' banner guidance. Wants § 25 TDDDG and the GDPR mapped to concrete settings, equal-weight choices as the default, consent that can be withdrawn as easily as it was given, and records that would hold up if a competitor or a consumer group sued.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The In-House Lawyer

Panel median The In-House Lawyer This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The In-House Lawyer
Banner & choice architecture 4 of 5 3.5 of 5
Prior blocking & script control 4 of 5 3.5 of 5
Scanning & cookie classification 3 of 5 3 of 5
Consent records & proof 2.5 of 5 2.5 of 5
Frameworks, signals & platforms 3 of 5 3 of 5
European sovereignty 4 of 5 4 of 5
Pricing transparency 3 of 5 2.5 of 5

Banner & choice architecture

How this is scored

What the visitor is asked and how: a reject option on the first layer with the same prominence as accept, consent by category and by vendor, withdrawal and changed choices as easy as the first consent (a persistent button or link), banner texts and layouts the site owner controls, languages, rules per country or regulation (GDPR, Swiss FADP, US state laws), accessibility of the banner itself, and consent-rate analytics or A/B tests that stay within the rules.

0 — Not a consent banner; the product shows a notice that cannot record a choice, or is a different kind of product.

3 — A banner with accept and a settings layer; whether reject sits on the first layer, how consent is withdrawn and how far the design can be changed are basic or not described.

5 — Accept, reject and settings on the first layer, consent by category, a way for visitors to change or withdraw their choice later, customisable texts, colours and layout, the banner in several languages, and a basic consent-rate statistic.

8 — Choice architecture documented in depth: reject and accept of equal weight stated as a default, consent per vendor or service as well as per category, geolocation rules that show a different banner per country or regulation, the banner stated as accessible (WCAG level named), dozens of languages with automatic detection, and consent-rate analytics or A/B testing with the limits on what may be tested explained.

10 — The choice is designed to stand up to a supervisory authority: templates mapped to named regulator guidance (for example the German DSK, CNIL or EDPB cookie banner report), dark patterns the product prevents listed, every banner version kept with its texts so the choice shown can be reconstructed, and consent-rate figures reported without nudging defaults.

Report an error

The In-House Lawyer

The vendor maps first-layer accept-and-reject requirements to named authorities — Germany, UK, France and Greece, with the Netherlands rejecting cookie walls and pre-ticked boxes and Belgium and Denmark demanding first-layer differentiation — and pairs this with consent per category and per service, GEO-IP redirection by region, customisable templates, 47+ locales, A/B testing, local consent statistics and an accessibility programme with WCAG named and dedicated fixes released. We found no public information stating that equal-weight accept and reject is the default layout, on how a visitor later changes or withdraws a choice, on a named WCAG level, or on the limits of what may be A/B tested. 9 2 10 6

Report an error

Prior blocking & script control

How this is scored

What happens before the visitor decides: automatic blocking of scripts, pixels, cookies and embedded content until consent is given, content blockers with placeholders for videos, maps and social embeds, integration with tag managers (Google Tag Manager, Matomo Tag Manager) and server-side tagging, consent passed to forms and plugins, and a documented way for the site owner to check that nothing loads too early.

0 — No blocking of any kind; the product only shows a banner and leaves every script running.

3 — Blocking by hand: the site owner changes script tags or tag-manager triggers using the consent state; automatic blocking, embeds and testing are basic or not described.

5 — Automatic blocking of known scripts and cookies before consent, placeholders for embedded videos and maps, a Google Tag Manager template or integration, and the blocking method documented in the help centre.

8 — Blocking described in depth: an auto-blocking mode and a manual mode with their limits explained, content blockers for named services that the vendor maintains, consent passed to forms, CAPTCHAs and plugins through a JavaScript API or events, server-side tagging supported, and instructions to test in the browser or a tag-manager preview that nothing loads before consent.

10 — Prior blocking the site owner can verify: an automated check or monitor that reports scripts and cookies set before consent on the live site, alerts when a new tracker bypasses the banner, blocking covering local storage, fingerprinting and pixels as well as cookies, and the method published so an auditor can follow it.

Report an error

The In-House Lawyer

Automatic blocking is documented in the help centre — iframe sources removed and scripts rewritten to text/plain until consent, with vendor-maintained lists of 27 script and 14 iframe patterns, community submissions and placeholders for embeds — alongside an unusually deep manual tagging mode with activation classes, per-purpose attributes, dependency handling and JavaScript module support, plus Google and Matomo tag manager integration and a consent signal passed to Shopify. We found no public information on server-side tagging or an automated monitor reporting scripts or cookies firing before consent on the live site; the documented self-check is limited to inspecting which cookies the site could load. 11 12 5 2

Report an error

Scanning & cookie classification

How this is scored

How the product knows what the site sets: a scanner that crawls the site for cookies, local storage, pixels and third-party requests, scheduled rescans, a maintained database that classifies cookies and services by purpose, provider and lifetime, alerts on new or changed trackers, and a cookie declaration or policy section that updates itself from the scan.

0 — No scanning and no cookie list; every service is entered and described by the site owner from scratch.

3 — A one-off scan or a list of services the site owner fills in, with some predefined templates; scheduled scans, classification and the declaration are basic or not described.

5 — A scanner that finds cookies and third-party services on the site, regular rescans, automatic classification into categories from a vendor database, and a cookie declaration generated from the result and kept on the site.

8 — Scanning described in depth: scheduled scans with a stated depth or page count, scanning behind logins or in different regions, local storage and pixels as well as cookies, a large maintained database of services with purposes, providers and lifetimes, email alerts on new or changed trackers, and the declaration updated automatically in several languages.

10 — The cookie list stays true without manual work: continuous monitoring of the live site with a change history, unknown trackers flagged for review rather than silently classified, the classification sources and update process published, and scan reports exportable for an audit.

Report an error

The In-House Lawyer

The scanner runs automatically by default, records each cookie's name, duration, purpose and service, feeds an auto-generated cookie policy in every language and is synced with Cookiedatabase for descriptions, with a repeat scan available at any time and a manual configuration fallback. The vendor describes the scanner as still in beta with possible false positives, password-protected sites must temporarily lift protection to be scanned, and we found no public information on scheduled rescans, email alerts on new or changed trackers, or scanning of local storage and pixels. 14 2 11

Report an error

Frameworks, signals & platforms

How this is scored

Where the consent goes and where the product runs: the IAB Transparency and Consent Framework (TCF, current version) with a registered CMP ID, Google Consent Mode v2 and Google's CMP certification, Microsoft UET consent mode and other ad-platform signals, the Global Privacy Platform and Global Privacy Control for US laws, plugins and apps for WordPress, Shopify, TYPO3 and other systems, iOS and Android SDKs, connected TV, multi-domain and agency accounts, and an API.

0 — No consent signal is passed on; other tools cannot read the visitor's choice.

3 — Consent readable through a cookie or a JavaScript variable, perhaps one CMS plugin; TCF, Consent Mode, app SDKs and multi-site management are basic or not described.

5 — Google Consent Mode v2 supported with the vendor named as a Google-certified CMP, IAB TCF supported, plugins or integrations for several named CMS and shop systems, a JavaScript API, and several domains manageable from one account.

8 — Signals and platforms described in depth: a registered IAB Europe CMP ID and the current TCF version, Google Consent Mode v2 in basic and advanced mode, Microsoft UET consent mode and other named ad signals, GPP and GPC for US states, iOS and Android SDKs documented, agency or partner accounts managing many client sites, and a REST API for configuration.

10 — One consent across every channel: web, apps and connected TV under one configuration, consent shared across domains and logged-in devices, every signal (TCF, Consent Mode, GPP, ad platforms) documented with its mapping to the banner choices, and configuration exportable or managed as code.

Report an error

The In-House Lawyer

The vendor is named as a Google CMP-certified provider with Google Consent Mode v2 (premium) and IAB TCF v2.0+ via a built-in premium module, Google Tag Manager and Google Analytics working with TCF by default, respect for Do Not Track and Global Privacy Control, US-specific purposes in the Shopify app, and native WordPress and Shopify products with tag manager support. We found no public information on a registered IAB CMP ID number, Microsoft UET or GPP signals, iOS or Android SDKs, connected TV, or a REST configuration API; the documentation references protecting its IAB registration without stating an ID. 2 5 17 4 12

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Who the contracting entity and the parent company are, where the banner script is served from, where consent logs and scan results are stored, and who the subprocessors are (hosting, CDN, geolocation, scanner infrastructure, app SDK telemetry, email and support). Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; a CMP runs on every page of the customer's site and sees every visitor, so the whole chain counts, not only the database. For a plugin that runs on the customer's own server, the vendor's licence, update and scanner services are the chain.

0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and no data processing agreement offered.

3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement exist, but hosting location is unstated or non-EU and the subprocessors are not listed.

5 — EU hosting available and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, but parts of the chain (CDN for the banner script, geolocation, scanner, analytics, support) run through non-EU providers without a stated safeguard.

8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, banner script and consent logs served and stored in the EU, subprocessors listed with their locations, a data processing agreement published, and security certifications (ISO 27001, SOC 2) stated.

10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting, CDN and every subprocessor, or a self-hosted option that keeps the banner and the logs on the customer's own server; data export and deletion documented, and certifications published with their scope rather than implied.

Report an error

The In-House Lawyer

The contracting entity is Complianz B.V. of Groningen, Netherlands, with a Chamber of Commerce number shown across the captures, and the WordPress plugin is deliberately self-hosted: it runs on the site owner's webserver, does not call home, keeps records, snapshots and statistics on the customer's own server, and the vendor documents that it receives no visitor data and therefore states a data processing agreement is not required. We found no public information on security certifications, on where the Shopify app and scanner infrastructure run, or a published processor list — that list is available only on request, with a US-place processor named for the vendor's own marketing alongside EU-named payment and hosting providers. 8 2 7 3

Report an error

Pricing transparency

How this is scored

Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: price per domain or site licence, the page-view, session or consent limits of each tier and what happens above them, the free tier's limits, which features (TCF, app SDKs, A/B testing, multi-domain, white label) cost extra, agency or reseller terms, minimum term, and setup.

0 — No public prices at all; every customer is a sales call.

3 — A starting price or a free tier exists, but how cost scales with domains, traffic or features is unclear.

5 — Tiers are public with their price per domain or licence and their main inclusions, but at least one commonly needed piece (traffic overage, extra domains, TCF, app SDKs, agency use) is unpriced or "on request".

8 — Every tier priced publicly with its scaling rule (per domain, per page view or session band, per site licence), overage and extra domains priced, add-ons listed with prices, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.

10 — Complete price computability: annual cost derivable for a given number of domains, traffic and apps, with every add-on, setup, support, overage and agency fee and the cancellation and data-return terms published.

Report an error

The In-House Lawyer

The pricing page publishes three tiers — Personal 1 website $59, Professional 5 websites $179, Agency 25 websites $399 — with one year of support and updates, yearly renewals rather than lifetime licences, a 30-day money-back guarantee, an included multisite plugin and per-tier feature lists, next to a free WordPress plugin. A buyer still cannot compute the full cost: we found no public price for the premium Shopify app beyond its free trial, pricing above 25 websites is on request, VAT treatment is not stated, and the captured pages give different starting figures — €59 on the features page for the Professional Privacy Suite against $59 for the single-site Personal plan on the pricing page. 6 2 1

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 6 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Hosting location Not determined — uncited Report an error
Hosting options Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Open source Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data processing agreement Not determined — uncited Report an error
Transfer impact assessment Not determined — uncited Report an error

Questions about Complianz

Is Complianz European?

Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Complianz as EU-Made.

Where does Complianz store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026.

Does Complianz have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026.

What are the best alternatives to Complianz?

As of 3 Nov 2026, the panel rates Usercentrics CMP (3.5/5), Didomi (3.5/5) and CCM19 (3.5/5) highest among the other 19 Consent Management (CMP) products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Usercentrics CMP (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Complianz alternatives.

Where this could be wrong

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

Do you know more about Complianz? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (18)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor homepage complianz.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Features page complianz.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Documentation (records of consent) complianz.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Documentation (IAB TCF) complianz.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Documentation (Google Consent Mode) complianz.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Pricing page complianz.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Privacy policy complianz.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Data processing agreement (dpa) complianz.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Banner & choice architecture — found from sitemap complianz.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Banner & choice architecture — found from sitemap complianz.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Prior blocking & script control — found from sitemap complianz.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Prior blocking & script control — found from sitemap complianz.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Scanning & cookie classification — found from sitemap complianz.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  14. 14 Scanning & cookie classification — found from sitemap complianz.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  15. 15 Consent records & proof — found from sitemap complianz.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  16. 16 Frameworks, signals & platforms — found from sitemap complianz.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  17. 17 Frameworks, signals & platforms — found from sitemap complianz.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  18. 18 Imprint — found from the homepage complianz.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →