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 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	3.5 of 5	3.5 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	3 of 5
Frameworks, signals & platforms	3.5 of 5	3.5 of 5
European sovereignty	2 of 5	1.5 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 In-House Lawyer

The choice is documented in real depth: granular consent per vendor and purpose, geo-targeting so only selected regions see the banner, thirty-plus languages, customisation down to CSS, a floating button so visitors can change or withdraw consent later, and a WCAG certification claim on every plan. We found no public statement that reject and accept carry equal weight as a default, and no consent-rate analytics; the documentation also describes an optional close button that lets visitors browse without any choice, and settings to load categories before consent or hide them alongside the vendor's own warning that those practices are not GDPR-compliant. 2 3 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 In-House Lawyer

Automatic blocking of third-party scripts and cookies until consent, with only strictly necessary cookies beforehand, placeholder text over embedded videos, a Google Tag Manager template, a consent-update trigger event, and a documented Chrome DevTools procedure to verify nothing loads early. We found no public information on a manual blocking mode, server-side tagging, or an automated monitor that reports pre-consent trackers on the live site. The documented verification is a manual self-test, which is workable but not systematic proof. 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 In-House Lawyer

A scanner runs against a database of 100,000+ pre-categorised cookies, with scheduled monthly or weekly rescans, stated page depths per tier (600, 4,000 and 8,000 pages), behind-login and static-IP scanning on the top tier, and policy generators plus scan results flowing into the banner. We found no public information on alerts when new or changed trackers appear, scanning of local storage or pixels, or exportable scan reports. For my shops I would still re-check the declaration manually after every release. 1 5 13 14

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 In-House Lawyer

Each consent is logged with a consent ID, UTC timestamp, country, pseudonymous IP address and category-level choices, exportable as a proof-of-consent PDF, with expiry configurable at a 365-day default and retention stated as the duration of the agreement in the data processing agreement. We found no public information tying each record to the banner version and texts the visitor actually saw, no withdrawal recorded as its own event, and no API-based export of the log. If a competitor or a consumer group sued, I could not reconstruct from this documentation exactly what the visitor was shown. 8 9 13 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 In-House Lawyer

The IAB TCF v2.4 certification and Google Consent Mode v2 certification are documented, Microsoft UET consent mode is explained down to the granted and denied behaviour of ad storage, Global Privacy Control arrives from the Pro plan, and WordPress, Shopify and Wix plugins plus a GTM trigger and JavaScript events cover the web estate. We found no public information on iOS or Android SDKs, GPP, or a REST configuration API, and TCF support sits behind the paid tiers. The UET documentation notes that with no default set, granted applies — a default I would override for European traffic. 3 4 5 12 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 In-House Lawyer

The contracting entity is CookieYes Limited, registered in the UK, the data processing agreement cites AWS hosting without a region, and the privacy policy itself says personal data may be stored and processed in any country where the company has operations. Several US providers are named in the privacy policy, but the service's own sub-processor list is available only on request; the Irish-law standard contractual clauses and the Irish EU representative are the only European anchors, with a published DPA. For shops in Germany, France and Austria I would not sign before seeing the hosting region and the full sub-processor list. 6 7 8 11

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

Every tier is public with its per-domain monthly price, its pageview allowance, overage at $0.30 per 1,000 extra pageviews, scan limits, VAT charged in addition, an annual discount of two months free, 30-day termination notice, and free machine-readable export of customer data within 30 days of termination. Agency partner types are listed but unpriced, and we found no public information on setup fees. A buyer can compute the real annual cost for a given number of domains and traffic from the public pages alone. 1 5 6 17

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 →