whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Consent Management (CMP)

Didomi

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 Didomi SAS · www.didomi.io

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

Link to this page

Didomi: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Didomi: 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.

Didomi at a glance

Vendor
Didomi SAS
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 29 Oct 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 29 Oct 2026
Free plan
Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 29 Oct 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates Didomi 3.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Didomi's consent management platform earns its best marks on scanning and classification and consent records: a scanner covering up to 20,000 pages, working behind logins and from a chosen country, and a versions-and-proofs module from which legal teams can pull the exact UI a user agreed to on any date. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 29 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 30 Oct 2026. all sources

Didomi 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 Wants § 25 TDDDG and the GDPR mapped to concrete settings, equal-weight choices as the default, consent that can be withdrawn as easily as it was given, and records that would hold up if a competitor or a consumer group sued.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 4 of 5
Prior blocking & script control 3 of 5 3 of 5
Scanning & cookie classification 4 of 5 4 of 5
Consent records & proof 4 of 5 4 of 5
Frameworks, signals & platforms 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
European sovereignty 2 of 5 2 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 help centre documents an equal-weight first layer — "Agree and close" sits beside "Disagree and close", a cross button and a "Continue without agreeing" link — and the agree/disagree pair is enabled by default and cannot be disabled, which is exactly the design the German courts demand. Choices run by purpose and by vendor, resurfacing is required to be as easy as first display per the quoted TCF 2.2 policy, geolocation serves different experiences per regulation, 45+ languages come with automatic detection, and every published notice version is kept so the choice shown can be reconstructed. We found no public information on accessibility certification for the banner or on stated limits for consent-rate A/B tests. 2 3 9 10 15

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

Blocking is documented through Google Tag Manager in real depth: one trigger per non-IAB vendor gated on the Didomi consent variable, consent events for single-page sites, and an explicit warning that mixing triggers drops cookies before consent — the kind of honest pitfall documentation I look for. Server-side tagging is offered on request, embedded videos are addressed, and the monitoring product treats trackers fired before consent as violations, so the owner can verify nothing loads early. We found no public information on an automatic script-blocking mode or maintained content blockers with placeholders for named embeds. 4 5 11 12 13

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 bot scrapes configured domains and can log in, scan from a chosen country, cover up to 20,000 pages and be watched back as a recording, sorting findings into cookies, pixels and local storage and splitting first-party from third-party. Rescans run monthly or weekly by plan, alerts go out the moment something changes or misfires, and outputs are audit-ready with a time-stamped historical trail and JSON export. We found no public information on a maintained classification database with purposes, providers and lifetimes, or on a cookie declaration that updates itself from the scan in several languages. 4 5 13 14

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 signal list is broad and current — IAB TCF v2.2, GPP, Google Consent Mode v2 with Google certified-partner status covering web, apps and connected TV, Microsoft UET consent mode, AWS consent mode and automatic Global Privacy Control handling — and there is a REST API with an admin API and batch export. The TCF integration shares consent status to selected IAB vendors with a standard banner text already validated by the IAB. We found no public information on a registered CMP ID, basic versus advanced Consent Mode modes, named CMS plugins, or agency accounts managing many client sites. 2 3 5 16 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 European and evidenced — Didomi SAS at 137 Boulevard de Sébastopol in Paris, registered with the Paris RCS, with a French VAT number, a DPO address and SCCs plus adequacy safeguards named for transfers — and the company states ISO 27001 certification with replication across at least two physically separated data centers. But the captured pages give no location for the banner script, consent logs or scan results, no subprocessor list and no published processing agreement; the only hosting fact is that the vendor's own website is hosted by Amazon Web Services LLC at a Seattle address. 6 7 8

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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 — Essential, Advanced, Premium — is priced "Contact us", with a free Compliance Monitoring scan as the only no-cost entry point, so a buyer cannot compute an annual cost from the public pages. The plan matrix does publish inclusions such as unlimited domains based on MUV, scan frequency and auditing-scan counts, which shows the scaling logic even though no figures are attached. Connected TV consent, cross-device consent, server-side tagging, preference management and the XL scan are all marked upon request or premium without prices. 2 4 5 13

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 — 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 Didomi

Is Didomi European?

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

Where does Didomi store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 29 Oct 2026.

Does Didomi have a free plan?

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

What are the best alternatives to Didomi?

As of 3 Nov 2026, the panel rates Usercentrics CMP (3.5/5), CCM19 (3.5/5) and Cookie Information (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: Didomi 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 Didomi? 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 www.didomi.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Features page (consent management platform) www.didomi.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Features page (Google Consent Mode v2) www.didomi.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Features page (scanning and compliance monitoring) www.didomi.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Pricing page (plans without prices) www.didomi.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Legal notice www.didomi.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Privacy policy www.didomi.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Security / trust page www.didomi.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Banner & choice architecture — found from sitemap support.didomi.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Banner & choice architecture — found from sitemap docs.didomi.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Prior blocking & script control — found from sitemap docs.didomi.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Prior blocking & script control — found from sitemap docs.didomi.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Scanning & cookie classification — found from sitemap docs.didomi.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  14. 14 Scanning & cookie classification — found from sitemap docs.didomi.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  15. 15 Consent records & proof — found from sitemap docs.didomi.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  16. 16 Consent records & proof — found from sitemap developers.didomi.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  17. 17 Frameworks, signals & platforms — found from sitemap developers.didomi.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  18. 18 Frameworks, signals & platforms — found from sitemap support.didomi.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →