whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Consent Management (CMP)

Real Cookie Banner

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 devowl.io GmbH · devowl.io

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

Link to this page

Real Cookie Banner: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Real Cookie Banner: 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.

Real Cookie Banner at a glance

Vendor
devowl.io GmbH
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 Real Cookie Banner 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. Real Cookie Banner is a consent-management plugin from devowl.io GmbH (HRB 5100, Amtsgericht Deggendorf), Grafling, Germany, that runs inside the customer's own WordPress: the banner is served from the customer's webspace and every consent record sits in the customer's database. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 29 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 30 Oct 2026. all sources

Real Cookie Banner 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 Wants § 25 TDDDG and the GDPR mapped to concrete settings, equal-weight choices as the default, consent that can be withdrawn as easily as it was given, and records that would hold up if a competitor or a consumer group sued.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 of 5
Prior blocking & script control 3.5 of 5 3 of 5
Scanning & cookie classification 2 of 5 2 of 5
Consent records & proof 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Frameworks, signals & platforms 3 of 5 3 of 5
European sovereignty 3.5 of 5 4 of 5
Pricing transparency 3.5 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 captured pages document consent by purpose and by TCF vendor (stacks, purposes, special purposes, features, vendors, legal basis), per-country handling through a MaxMind geo database processed locally on the server, WCAG 2.2 Level AA accessibility with keyboard and screen-reader support and an accessibility score, 19 languages, 20+ design templates with 200+ options, and aggregated consent statistics. However, we found no public information stating that reject carries the same weight as accept on the first layer, nor on a persistent route for visitors to change or withdraw their choice as easily as it was given — the two points a supervisory authority would raise first. 1 3 6 10

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

Service and content-blocker templates (160+ and 130+) are described as preventing personal-data processing before consent, embeds load only after the consent check with lazy loading, external fonts are blocked granularly, and knowledge-base pages for Google Tag Manager and Matomo Tag Manager, a JavaScript API and a developer API are documented, with guidance to test that cookies really are set only after consent. We found no public information on server-side tagging, on consent being passed to forms and CAPTCHAs, or on distinct automatic and manual blocking modes with their limits explained. 1 6 12 14

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 vendor describes a sitemap-based service scanner with several detection methods (iframes, script and link tags, inline fonts, installed WordPress plugins, HTTP headers for services such as Cloudflare) backed by manually researched templates, and a cookie declaration that generates itself from the banner. The vendor's own pages state that no cookie scanner is offered, that specific cookies are not scanned, that services embedded after page load are not found, and that manual checking is always recommended; we found no public information on scheduled rescans or alerts on new or changed trackers. 1 2 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

TCF 2.2 is documented in depth (weekly Global Vendor List updates, a vendor tab with autofill, service-specific scope, non-conform options hidden when TCF is active) alongside Google Consent Mode v2 with per-country region signals, additional consent types and privacy-friendly defaults; a REST API, WordPress actions and filters, a JavaScript API, multisite operation, consent forwarding and an agency licence for 25 websites are described. The captured pages give different figures on Google's CMP certification (certified for AdSense on the product page; not part of the Partner Program on two help pages), and we found no public information on a registered IAB CMP ID, Microsoft UET consent mode, GPP or GPC, or app SDKs — the product runs on WordPress only. 1 3 4 5 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 banner and all consent records run on the customer's own webspace and in the customer's WordPress database, with the vendor stating it has no access to settings or documented consents outside support tickets; the contracting entity is a German GmbH registered at Amtsgericht Deggendorf with a German address and VAT ID, and geolocation uses a locally stored MaxMind database so the IP address is not sent to a third party. The vendor's stated position is that it is not a processor within Art. 28 GDPR during operation and therefore offers no data processing agreement for it — one is requested only for support access — while licence activation and updates run through the vendor's own servers with telemetry that can be deactivated, and we found no public information on ISO 27001 or SOC 2 certifications or on the infrastructure behind those servers. 1 6 7 8

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

Five tiers are public with a clear per-website scaling rule — 59 € (1 website), 89 € (3), 129 € (5), 229 € (10) and 299 € (25) gross per year, each with all features, updates and premium support, staging environments included at the same count, VAT included, cancellation at any time without notice period, plus a free version and a free sandbox. Enterprise above 25 websites and the expert setup service are available on request, so the setup cost cannot be computed from the public pages. 1 14

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 ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Transfer impact assessment Not determined — uncited Report an error

Questions about Real Cookie Banner

Is Real Cookie Banner European?

Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Real Cookie Banner as EU-Made.

Where does Real Cookie Banner store data?

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

Does Real Cookie Banner have a free plan?

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

What are the best alternatives to Real Cookie Banner?

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: Real Cookie Banner 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 Real Cookie Banner? 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 (product page with prices) devowl.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Documentation (service scanner) devowl.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Documentation (IAB TCF) devowl.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Documentation (Google Consent Mode) devowl.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Documentation (consent forwarding across sites) devowl.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Documentation (data processing) devowl.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Legal notice devowl.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Privacy policy devowl.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Banner & choice architecture — found from sitemap devowl.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Banner & choice architecture — found from sitemap devowl.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Prior blocking & script control — found from sitemap devowl.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Prior blocking & script control — found from sitemap devowl.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Scanning & cookie classification — found from sitemap devowl.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  14. 14 Scanning & cookie classification — found from sitemap devowl.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  15. 15 Consent records & proof — found from sitemap devowl.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  16. 16 Consent records & proof — found from sitemap devowl.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  17. 17 Frameworks, signals & platforms — found from sitemap devowl.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →
  18. 18 Frameworks, signals & platforms — found from sitemap devowl.io Checked 29 Oct 2026 Details →