Consent Management (CMP)

CookieYes

UK / wider Europe 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 CookieYes Limited · www.cookieyes.com

An AI-assisted analysis of public evidence — not a hands-on test.

Every score, rationale and verdict on this page is AI-generated. Every claim cites the source it was read from. Nothing here is a human star review — and no score can be bought. How scores are made →

Method and versions

The Data Protection Officer v1.0 · The Agency Developer v1.0 · The Publisher Marketing Lead v1.0 · The In-House Lawyer v1.0 · The WordPress Webmaster v1.0 · The Skeptic v1.0 · rubric v1 · evaluated 30 Oct 2026

Compare with Cookiebot → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

HTML

<a href="https://whats-best.ai/software/consent-management/cookieyes"><img src="https://whats-best.ai/badge/consent-management/cookieyes.svg" alt="CookieYes: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai" height="66"></a>

Markdown

[![CookieYes: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai](https://whats-best.ai/badge/consent-management/cookieyes.svg)](https://whats-best.ai/software/consent-management/cookieyes)

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.

CookieYes at a glance

Vendor: CookieYes Limited
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: Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 29 Oct 2026
Panel verdict: The AI panel rates CookieYes 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. CookieYes scores best on pricing transparency, 7 to 8: four published tiers at $0, $10, $25 and $55 per month per domain, pageview limits per tier, and overage at $0.30 per 1,000 extra pageviews. 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

CookieYes alternatives, European ones first →

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

The Data Protection Officer

Weighted verdict

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.

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

Scored by The Data Protection Officer

Panel median The Data Protection Officer 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 Data Protection Officer
Banner & choice architecture	3.5 of 5	3 of 5
Prior blocking & script control	3.5 of 5	3.5 of 5
Scanning & cookie classification	3 of 5	3 of 5
Consent records & proof	3 of 5	2.5 of 5
Frameworks, signals & platforms	3.5 of 5	3 of 5
European sovereignty	2 of 5	2 of 5
Pricing transparency	4 of 5	4 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 Data Protection Officer

The documentation goes well beyond basics: three layouts with per-layout positions, colour themes, GDPR and US-state consent templates, geo-targeting with an auto-translated banner in 30+ languages, granular consent per vendor and purpose, and a floating button for changing or withdrawing a choice later. What I could not find is a statement that reject sits on the first layer with the same weight as accept, a named WCAG level rather than a bare "WCAG Accessibility Certified" badge, or any consent-rate analytics; the help centre also documents a close button that lets a visitor browse without answering and an option to load cookies before consent, which the vendor itself notes is not a GDPR-compliant practice. 2 3 4 5 9

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 Data Protection Officer

Automatic script blocking is documented in depth: third-party scripts and their cookies stay blocked until consent, only strictly necessary cookies should be present beforehand, embedded YouTube and Vimeo videos get editable placeholder text, and consent state is exposed through JavaScript events and a Google Tag Manager trigger. The help centre gives the site owner browser steps to verify nothing loads early. We found no public information on server-side tagging or on blocking that covers local storage, pixels or fingerprinting rather than cookies. 4 9 11 12 18

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 Data Protection Officer

Scanning is concrete and tiered: 100 to 8,000 pages per scan depending on the plan, monthly or weekly scheduled rescans, scanning behind logins and from a static IP on the top plan, classification against a database of 100,000+ pre-categorised cookies with descriptions, and a cookie-policy generator. We found no public information on alerts when a new or changed tracker appears, on scanning local storage or pixels, or on a declaration that updates itself automatically from the scan. 1 5 13

Report an error

Consent records & proof

How this is scored

What the site owner can show afterwards: a record per consent with time, pseudonymous ID, the choices made and the banner version shown, how long records are kept and where, export of the consent log, re-consent when the services or texts change, consent expiry, records available to the visitor (a consent ID), and proof that withdrawal took effect.

0 — No record of consent is kept anywhere; the choice lives only in the visitor's browser.

3 — Consent stored in a cookie with a simple log or counter; per-visitor records, retention, export and banner versions are basic or not described.

5 — A consent log with a record per consent (time, pseudonymous ID, choices), a retention period stated, export of the log as a file, and the banner asking again when the configuration changes.

8 — Proof described in depth: each record tied to the banner version and texts shown, a consent ID the visitor can look up, retention and storage location stated, consent expiry configurable, withdrawal recorded as its own event, cross-domain or cross-device consent recorded consistently, and the log searchable and exportable through an API.

10 — Records built for a dispute: a tamper-evident or audit-proof log, every record reproducible with the exact banner and texts the visitor saw, documentation on how to answer a supervisory authority's request, and the full log exportable in an open format when the customer leaves.

Report an error

The Data Protection Officer

Every consent is logged on the server with a consent ID, date and time in UTC, country, a pseudonymised IP with the last segment masked, and overall and category-wise status including cookie names, purposes and durations; a PDF "Proof of Consent" export exists and expiry is configurable at 365 days by default. For my files the gap is decisive: we found no public information tying each record to the banner version and texts the visitor saw, on how long consent logs are kept, on withdrawal recorded as its own event, or on export through an API. 4 9 15 16

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 Data Protection Officer

The signal chain is broad for the web: IAB TCF v2.4 with IAB and Google CMP certification, Google Consent Mode v2 enabled by default plus Additional Consent Mode, Microsoft UET consent mode via Tag Manager or a custom script, Global Privacy Control from the Pro plan, WordPress, Shopify and Wix apps, and documented JavaScript events. We found no public information on a registered CMP ID number, the Global Privacy Platform, iOS or Android SDKs, connected TV, or a REST API for configuration; agency use appears only as a partner programme. 2 4 5 17 18

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 Data Protection Officer

The contracting entity is CookieYes Limited, registered in the United Kingdom; hosting is on AWS with no region stated, and the privacy policy says personal data may be stored and processed in any country where the company has operations. Subprocessors are named — Google, Hotjar, Stripe, Intercom, Zendesk, Sendgrid among them — but without their locations, and a published data processing agreement with EU standard contractual clauses and an EU representative in Ireland are the stated safeguards. We found no public information on EU hosting, where the banner script is served from, or where consent logs and scan results sit. 7 8 13

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 Data Protection Officer

A buyer can compute most of the annual cost from public pages: $0, $10, $25 and $55 per domain per month with stated page-view limits per tier, overage at $0.30 per 1,000 extra pageviews, scan depth per plan, 2 months free on annual billing, VAT stated as charged in addition, and terms covering advance billing, 30-day termination notice and the trial converting automatically to a paid subscription. Not computable from public pages: the Enterprise tier with its custom contracts and any agency or reseller fee. 5 6

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.

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

Questions about CookieYes

Is CookieYes European?

Yes, though not from the EU. whats-best.ai classifies CookieYes as UK / wider Europe.

Where does CookieYes store data?

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

Does CookieYes have a free plan?

Yes. CookieYes has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 29 Oct 2026.

What are the best alternatives to CookieYes?

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: CookieYes alternatives.

Where this could be wrong

Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 29 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
Weak sourcing — Legal entity, Data processing agreement. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.

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.

16 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
4 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
3 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
2 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
2 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
2 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us

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

Sources (19)

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

1 Vendor homepage www.cookieyes.com Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
2 Features page (cookie consent) www.cookieyes.com Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
3 Features page (IAB TCF) www.cookieyes.com Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
4 Features page (Google Consent Mode) www.cookieyes.com Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
5 Pricing page www.cookieyes.com Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
6 Terms of service www.cookieyes.com Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
7 Privacy policy www.cookieyes.com Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
8 Data processing agreement (dpa) www.cookieyes.com Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
9 Banner & choice architecture — found from sitemap www.cookieyes.com Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
10 Banner & choice architecture — found from sitemap www.cookieyes.com Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
11 Prior blocking & script control — found from sitemap www.cookieyes.com Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
12 Prior blocking & script control — found from sitemap www.cookieyes.com Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
13 Scanning & cookie classification — found from sitemap www.cookieyes.com Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
14 Scanning & cookie classification — found from sitemap www.cookieyes.com Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
15 Consent records & proof — found from sitemap www.cookieyes.com Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
16 Consent records & proof — found from sitemap www.cookieyes.com Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
17 Frameworks, signals & platforms — found from sitemap www.cookieyes.com Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
18 Frameworks, signals & platforms — found from sitemap www.cookieyes.com Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
19 Self-hosting / on-premises installation docs — found from the homepage www.cookieyes.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →