Data Protection
Cookiebot
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Cybot A/S · www.cookiebot.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
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.
Cookiebot at a glance
- Vendor
- Cybot A/S
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Cookiebot 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Cookiebot, a consent management platform from Cybot A/S, a trademark of Usercentrics A/S registered in Denmark, scored strongest on framework coverage at 5-7 and integrations and automation at 4-6. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Cookiebot, a consent management platform from Cybot A/S, a trademark of Usercentrics A/S registered in Denmark, scored strongest on framework coverage at 5-7 and integrations and automation at 4-6. The pages show no-code apps for Wix, Shopify and WordPress, Google Tag Manager templates, live consent signals to Google, Microsoft and Amazon, monthly automated scanning with prior blocking, and coverage of GDPR, UK GDPR with PECR, CCPA, VCDPA, LGPD, TCF v2.4 and the Google and Microsoft consent modes from one implementation. It scored weakest on privacy management at 0-1 and rights and incidents at 2: the record-keeping evidenced is visitor consent choices, and the judges found no public information on records of processing, DPIA tooling, breach registers or request workflows with statutory clocks; the 45-day response language is the vendor's own policy, not a product module. The genuine split is integrations and automation, 4-6: judges weighing enterprise plumbing — a documented API, single sign-on, directory import — scored low because none is shown publicly, while judges weighing the website estate scored high. Audit readiness sits at 4; pricing transparency at 4-5.
Speaks for it
- Native no-code apps for Wix, Shopify and WordPress, with Google Tag Manager templates and consent signals sent to Google, Microsoft and Amazon.
- Monthly automated scanning that identifies and classifies cookies and trackers, with non-essential cookies blocked prior to consent.
- Regimes named as covered — GDPR, UK GDPR with PECR, CCPA, VCDPA, LGPD, TCF v2.4, Google Consent Mode and Microsoft UET Consent Mode — from a single implementation.
- Consent logging of every decision including changes over time, positioned for GDPR accountability and CCPA recordkeeping, alongside scan reports and a public cookie declaration.
- Published monthly prices — Shopify Free at 0 USD, Shopify Essential at 6 USD, Shopify Pro at 30 USD, Wix Premium at 7 EUR, WordPress Premium from 7 EUR per domain — plus free tiers and a 14-day free trial.
Held against it
- Privacy management scored 0-1, with no public information on records of processing, DPIA tooling, processor management or TOMs.
- Rights and incidents scored 2, with no public information on request workflows with statutory clocks, breach registers or authority notification output.
- No public information on a documented API, webhooks, single sign-on or directory import, leaving automation inside the website estate.
- No public prices for the Usercentrics Advanced tier or the add-ons, and WordPress pricing scales by page count from 7 EUR.
- No public information on hosting location or a subprocessor list, while the group entity list includes Usercentrics Inc.
Best for
- You run your site on Wix, Shopify or WordPress and want a consent banner, monthly scanning and prior blocking set up without code.
- You need one implementation serving GDPR consent to EU visitors and a Do Not Sell or Share link with GPC handling for likely-California visitors.
- Your advertising runs on Google and Microsoft and you want automatic consent signals, including Google Consent Mode v2.
- You need per-visitor consent records with changes over time as evidence for the consent side of an audit.
Avoid if
- You need a records-of-processing register, DPIA tooling or breach-register workflows — privacy management scored 0-1 and rights and incidents 2, and the record-keeping the pages evidence is visitor consent choices.
- You plan to integrate through a documented API or manage access with single sign-on — integrations and automation ranged 4 to 6, and the connectors shown stop at the website estate.
- You must budget an Advanced Business or Enterprise deployment in advance — pricing transparency ranged 4 to 5, with public numbers stopping at the app editions.
- Your procurement requires documented hosting locations and a subprocessor list — sovereignty ranged 3 to 4; the pages name EU standard contractual clauses as transfer safeguards but we found no public information on either.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Records & DPIA depth | 0.5 of 5 |
| Data subject rights & incidents | 1 of 5 |
| Privacy regime coverage | 3 of 5 |
| Audit readiness & evidence | 2 of 5 |
| Integrations & automation | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 2.5 of 5 |
Records & DPIA depth
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The DSMS core: records of processing (RoPA/VVT), data protection impact assessments, processor/DPA management and TOMs — how deeply the legal artifacts are modeled and connected.
0 — Document templates in a folder tree; the "register" is a Word file with version numbers in the filename.
3 — A structured RoPA with basic fields and a DPIA questionnaire, but processors, TOMs and legal bases live outside the system.
5 — RoPA and DPIA as linked modules with templates; processor management and TOM assignment exist but are shallow, and group reuse is copy-paste.
8 — A connected data model — processing activities linked to systems, processors, TOMs and legal bases — with DPIA triggers derived from the record, reusable group templates, and outputs a supervisory authority accepts.
10 — Privacy records as a system of record: the RoPA drives DPIAs, processor management and TOM coverage from one data model, multi-client/mandate capability included, and the documentation is audit-ready without manual assembly.
The External DPO
This is a consent layer, not a records system: the captured pages evidence cookie scanning, consent banners and consent logging, and I found no public information on records of processing, DPIA modules, processor management or TOMs. As a consultancy tool this sits beside the register rather than driving it — no multi-client register capability is evidenced on any page I reviewed. 3 4 5
The In-House Counsel
Everything captured describes a consent banner, a cookie scanner and consent logging — I found no public information on a records-of-processing register, a DPIA module, processor and DPA management, or TOMs. For the legal artifacts this criterion measures, the captured pages evidence none of the modeling at all. 1 4 5
The Drafted Generalist
What I can build on here is a consent log that records every visitor decision including changes over time, plus cookie scan reports; we found no public information on records of processing, DPIA questionnaires, processor and DPA management, or TOMs as product modules. For my processing register there is nothing on these pages to evaluate. 4 6 3
The Lead Auditor
I found no public information on records of processing, impact assessments, processor management or TOM modeling — the DSMS core I audit first is absent from the captured pages. What the pages do evidence is consent logging, scan reports and a cookie declaration, which is a narrow record of tracking rather than a processing register. 3 4 6
The IT Integrator
This is a consent platform, not a records system: the deepest legal artifacts evidenced are per-visitor consent logs and an auto-generated cookie declaration fed by the scanner. We found no public information on records of processing, DPIA modules, processor and DPA management, or TOMs, so I cannot feed a RoPA from any of this. 3 4 5
Data subject rights & incidents
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The operational half of the DSMS: data subject request handling with statutory clocks, breach register and authority notification, deletion concepts that actually delete.
0 — Requests arrive by email and live there; breaches are a phone call and a memo.
3 — A request log and a breach list exist, but deadlines are manual, intake is unstructured, and deletion rules are documentation rather than workflow.
5 — DSR workflows with the Art. 12 clock tracked, structured breach register with the 72-hour clock, deletion concepts assignable to records; automation is reminders.
8 — Intake channels for requests (portal/form), identity-check support, deadline automation with escalation, breach severity assessment and authority-report output, deletion rules tied to the RoPA with execution tracking.
10 — Rights and incidents as operations: end-to-end request handling an authority audit walks through, breach workflows that produce the Art. 33 notification, and deletion automation with evidence that the deletion happened.
The External DPO
What is evidenced is visitor-facing rights automation — consent withdrawal at any time, Global Privacy Control signals and an automatic Do Not Sell link routed by visitor location. I found no public information on data subject request workflows with statutory clocks, identity checks, a breach register or authority notification; the 45-day response promise on these pages is the vendor's own policy toward its users, not a module I can run client mandates through. 3 4 6
The In-House Counsel
Consent withdrawal at any time and automatic "Do Not Sell or Share" presentation for likely-California visitors with GPC processing are evidenced, which is genuine rights automation at the website edge. But I found no public information on a breach register, a 72-hour authority clock, or request intake with statutory deadline tracking — when a regulator asks how the Article 33 notification was produced, nothing captured answers that. 4 6 7
The Drafted Generalist
The tool exercises rights automatically at the website surface — showing the "Do Not Sell or Share" link to likely-California visitors and processing Global Privacy Control signals — so opt-outs happen without me touching anything. But we found no public information on request workflows with statutory clocks, a breach register with 72-hour handling, or deletion execution; the 45-day response language in the privacy policy describes the vendor answering requests about itself, not software that tracks my deadlines. 6 3
The Lead Auditor
The vendor's own policy describes forty-five day response windows, appeal rights, self-service account deletion and consent withdrawal, and the CMP handles opt-out links and GPC signals — but these are controller conduct and consent features, not product workflows. I found no public information on a request log with statutory clocks, a breach register or authority-notification output as capabilities a buyer could run. 3 4 6
The IT Integrator
The rights automation that is evidenced is end-user facing — consent withdrawal at the banner, GPC signals processed automatically, and a "Do Not Sell or Share" link presented to likely-California visitors while EU visitors get the GDPR flow. There is nothing for request casework: we found no public information on data subject request workflows with statutory clocks, breach registers, authority notification output, or deletion execution tracking. 3 4 6
The Skeptic
What is operational is consent withdrawal and granular change, with every decision logged over time, plus self-service account deletion. We found no public information on data subject request workflows with statutory clocks, identity verification, or a breach register with authority notification; the 45-day response and appeal windows that appear are the vendor's own policy commitments rather than product features. 3 4 6
Privacy regime coverage
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Which privacy regimes the product actually operationalizes — GDPR, BDSG, Swiss nDSG, UK GDPR, ePrivacy, EU AI Act privacy duties — and whether one record maps across them or each regime is a fresh island.
0 — One regime, hard-coded; anything else is "on the roadmap".
3 — GDPR plus one national law as separate checklists; the same processing activity is documented once per regime.
5 — The major regimes for its market with partial cross-mapping; newer duties (AI Act, ePrivacy changes) present as content packs of varying depth.
8 — Broad current coverage with one-record-many-regimes mapping and visible maintenance as regimes evolve.
10 — Regime coverage as a living product: multiple privacy regimes on one data basis, per-country variants, and documented update cadence when the law moves.
The External DPO
Regime breadth is real for the consent layer: GDPR, ePrivacy, UK GDPR and PECR, CCPA, Virginia, Brazil's LGPD, IAB TCF v2.4 and both Google and Microsoft consent modes, with one implementation routing EU visitors to consent and Californians to opt-out. Support for the new Consent Mode v2 signals suggests the set is maintained as frameworks move. I found no public information on broader privacy-regime variants such as Swiss law or AI Act duties. 2 3 5 6 9
The In-House Counsel
GDPR, UK GDPR and PECR, ePrivacy, CCPA, VCDPA and LGPD are evidenced off a single scan, with audience-specific flows and TCF v2.4 plus Google and Microsoft consent signals — one implementation serving several regimes. I found no public information on German or Swiss national variants or EU AI Act duties, and maintenance shows only as "automatic updates" rather than a documented cadence. 2 3 5 6 8
The Drafted Generalist
The pages list GDPR, UK GDPR with PECR, CCPA, Virginia, LGPD, TCF v2.4, DMA and the Google and Microsoft consent frameworks, and the CCPA page says one implementation supports CCPA recordkeeping and GDPR accountability for EU versus California visitors — one setup serving several regimes. We found no public information on BDSG, Swiss nDSG or EU AI Act privacy duties, so the breadth is genuine but confined to the consent world. 2 5 6 8
The Lead Auditor
The consent regimes are covered broadly and currently — GDPR, UK GDPR with PECR, CCPA, Virginia, Brazil, ePrivacy, DMA, IAB TCF v2.4, and both Google and Microsoft consent modes — with the California opt-out and GDPR flows described as running from a single implementation with visitor detection. I found no public information on per-country variants, the EU AI Act's privacy duties, or a documented update cadence when a regime moves. 2 5 6 9
The IT Integrator
The regime list is genuinely broad for consent — GDPR, UK GDPR and PECR, CCPA, Virginia, Brazil's LGPD, TCF v2.4, plus Google and Microsoft consent-mode frameworks — and a single implementation is said to serve both EU consent flows and California opt-out audiences, with visible currency in Consent Mode v2's new ad user data and ad personalization signals. We found no public information on European national variants or AI Act privacy duties, so the coverage stays in the consent lane rather than full privacy-regime mapping. 2 5 6 9
The Skeptic
GDPR, UK GDPR with PECR, CCPA, VCDPA, LGPD, TCF v2.4 and the Google and Microsoft consent modes are all named as covered, and the CCPA and GDPR flows are described as running from a single implementation. We found no public information on Swiss nDSG, BDSG or EU AI Act duties, and the only maintenance signal is an automatic-updates note on one app page. 2 5 6 8
Audit readiness & evidence
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the system produces defensible proof: revision-safe history, evidence collection, reports for auditors, authorities and management.
0 — Exports are screenshots; history is overwritten in place.
3 — PDF reports exist but evidence is attached ad hoc and changes leave no reliable trail.
5 — Versioned records, standard report generators for the core registers, evidence attachments per activity; assembling a full audit file still takes days.
8 — Revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, management and authority reports current at a click, auditor access roles.
10 — Audit readiness as a standing state: continuous documentation status per regime and scope, exportable proof packs an auditor accepts as-is, and a defensible answer to "show me the state on date X".
The External DPO
Every consent decision is logged including changes over time, and scan reports and consent statistics are generated automatically — a defensible trail for the consent slice, with even 24-month retention advice for opt-out records on the pages. But "audit" on these pages means a website tracking audit; I found no public information on revision-safe record history, evidence packs, auditor access roles or authority-ready report output. 3 4 6 7
The In-House Counsel
Per-visitor consent records with changes over time, audit logs and scan reports are exactly the right kind of artifact for the consent-proof burden. I found no public information on revision-safe change history, auditor access roles, or reconstructing the state on a given date — a full authority file would still be assembled outside what these pages show. 3 4 6 7
The Drafted Generalist
Consent records kept per visitor with changes over time, automatic monthly scanning with scan reports, and a public cookie declaration give me defensible proof on the consent side of an audit. We found no public information on revision-safe change history for company records, on-demand evidence packs, auditor access roles, or management and authority reports, so my full audit file would not come out of this tool. 4 6 1 3
The Lead Auditor
Every consent decision is logged including changes over time, each visitor's choices are kept as records, and monthly scans, scan reports, aggregated statistics and invoices render in the Service Manager — that is a real trail for consent. Nothing evidences revision-safe history on configurations, auditor access roles, or evidence packs on demand, so I have no defensible answer to "show me the state on date X" from these pages. 1 3 4 6
The IT Integrator
Consent logging records every decision including changes over time and is explicitly positioned for GDPR accountability and CCPA recordkeeping, and scan reports plus a free website audit are generated outputs. But defensible proof packs are not in evidence: we found no public information on revision-safe change history for configurations, auditor access roles, or reconstructing the state on a given date. 3 4 6 7
The Skeptic
Every consent decision is logged including changes over time and is positioned as supporting GDPR accountability and CCPA recordkeeping, alongside scan reports and a public cookie declaration. We found no public information on revision-safe change history, evidence packs, auditor access roles or authority-ready reports, and the ISO 27001, ISO 27701 and Google Gold Tier claims appear as assertions on marketing pages rather than linked certificates. 1 3 4 6
Integrations & automation
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the platform feeds from the real IT estate — directory import, ticketing, API — and automates the recurring privacy work instead of re-typing it.
0 — A closed island: manual entry in, PDF out, no API.
3 — CSV/Excel import and export; no live connections, no API worth the name.
5 — Directory import (AD/Entra), a documented REST API for core objects, a handful of native connectors (ticketing or SSO); automation is reminders and recurrence.
8 — Real connector set (ticketing, HR or asset sources), webhooks, SSO/SCIM, workflow automation with delegation and escalation, useful AI assistance with human review.
10 — The platform behaves like infrastructure: API parity for the data model, event streams, bidirectional sync with the estate, and automation that measurably removes the recurring toil (reviews, attestations, evidence pulls) rather than renaming it.
The External DPO
Native no-code plugins for Wix, Shopify and WordPress, Google Tag Manager templates and consent signals to Google, Microsoft and Amazon are genuine estate integration for a consent platform, with monthly automated scanning and prior blocking removing recurring manual work. I found no public information on a documented API for core objects, directory import, ticketing or HR connections, or single sign-on. 1 2 8 9
The In-House Counsel
No-code apps for Wix, Shopify and WordPress, Google Tag Manager templates with gtag.js examples, consent signals to Google, Microsoft and Amazon, monthly automated scanning and consent carried automatically across the customer's own sites. For the estate side I found no public information on a documented API, webhooks, SSO/SCIM or directory import. 1 8 9
The Drafted Generalist
This is the strongest part for someone like me: no-code apps for Wix, Shopify and WordPress, Google Tag Manager templates with ready-made code, monthly automatic scanning that identifies and classifies trackers, prior blocking of non-essential cookies, and consent signals sent to Google, Microsoft and Amazon — recurring toil genuinely automated away. We found no public information on a documented REST API for core objects, webhooks, SSO or directory import for company-side data. 1 8 9
The Lead Auditor
There is genuine integration with the web estate — native apps for Wix, Shopify and WordPress, Tag Manager templates with gtag examples, consent signals sent to Google, Microsoft and Amazon, automated monthly scanning, prior blocking, and consent carried across a customer's sites automatically — plus developer documentation. I found no public information on a documented API for core objects, directory import, SSO or webhooks, so the connector story stays on the marketing side of the estate. 1 3 7 8 9
The IT Integrator
The native connectors are real but web-estate only — Wix, Shopify and WordPress apps, Google Tag Manager templates with gtag.js examples, clean consent signals pushed to Google, Microsoft and Amazon, and monthly automated scanning with automatic blocking before consent. The enterprise-side plumbing I buy for is not shown: we found no public information on directory import, SSO or SCIM, ticketing or HR connectors, webhooks, or a documented API for the platform's own data; developer documentation is named as a channel but its API surface is never displayed. 1 2 8 9
The Skeptic
There are genuine native connectors — app-store apps for Wix, Shopify and WordPress, Google Tag Manager templates, and live consent signals to Google, Microsoft and Amazon — with automated monthly scanning and prior blocking of trackers. We found no public information on a documented REST API, webhooks, single sign-on or directory import, so the automation story stays inside the website estate. 1 8 9
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the compliance record of the whole company actually lives and under whose law — entity, hosting, subprocessors, DPA. A platform that maps your processing is itself your most concentrated processing.
0 — Non-EU entity, non-EU-default hosting, no public DPA or subprocessor list — for the system holding your RoPA.
3 — A DPA exists and an EU region is available on request or on top tiers; subprocessor exposure to US CLOUD Act reach is broad or undocumented.
5 — EU hosting is the default, DPA and subprocessor list published; the vendor or a critical subprocessor is still within non-European jurisdictional reach.
8 — EU entity, EU hosting with named data centers, published subprocessor list free of content-touching non-EU processors, DPA and TOMs public.
10 — Jurisdictionally clean end to end: European ownership, EU-only hosting and subprocessors, on-premises or sovereign-cloud options, and the whole chain documented publicly.
The External DPO
The controller is a Danish-registered company and a data processing agreement is available, with third-country transfers resting on EU standard contractual clauses. But I found no public information on hosting locations or named data centers or on a published subprocessor list, and the group shares data across entities including a US-incorporated company. 1 2 3
The In-House Counsel
The captured legal pages identify Usercentrics A/S, registered in Denmark, as the entity, a Data Processing Agreement is offered, ISO 27001 and 27701 are stated, and EU standard contractual clauses cover third-country transfers. But I found no public information on where the service is hosted or on a subprocessor list, and the privacy policy itself describes data shared across a group that includes Usercentrics Inc — non-European jurisdictional reach sits inside the chain. 1 3 5 9
The Drafted Generalist
The legal notice confirms Usercentrics A/S, registered in Denmark, with a published Data Processing Agreement, and ISO 27001 and 27701 certifications are claimed. However, the privacy policy states data is shared across the group including Usercentrics Inc., with EU standard contractual clauses or binding internal rules as safeguards, and we found no public information on hosting location or a published subprocessor list. 2 3 5 1
The Lead Auditor
Usercentrics A/S is a registered Danish entity with a published Data Processing Agreement, ISO 27001 and 27701 certifications, and EU Standard Contractual Clauses or binding internal rules for third-country transfers. The captured pages give no hosting location and I found no public subprocessor list, and the vendor shares data between group entities including Usercentrics Inc, so the chain is partly under non-European reach and partly undocumented. 1 2 3 5 9
The IT Integrator
The paper trail starts well — Usercentrics A/S registered in Denmark with company reg. no. 34624607, a Data Processing Agreement available, and EU standard contractual clauses or binding internal rules for third-country transfers. But group data sharing includes Usercentrics Inc, and we found no public information on hosting location, named data centers, or a subprocessor list — for a platform that maps your consent processing, that is the exposure I most need documented. 1 2 3 8
The Skeptic
The vendor is registered in Denmark with a published Data Processing Agreement and names EU standard contractual clauses and binding internal rules for third-country transfers. We found no public information on hosting locations or a subprocessor list, and the group entity list includes Usercentrics Inc, a US company with which data is shared. 2 3 5
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real invoice — per module, per entity, per year, with consulting unbundled — from public pages alone. Unpublished pricing is the B2B norm in this market, so this criterion describes rather than condemns; the benches weight it accordingly.
0 — No public prices at all; every configuration is a sales conversation.
3 — An entry price exists, but module add-ons, entity counts or bundled consulting make the real total incomputable.
5 — Most editions carry real numbers with billing period stated and software separated from services; at least one commonly needed module or scale step is unpriced.
8 — Every edition and module priced publicly with entity/user boundaries and setup fees stated; only genuine corporate-group contracts are custom.
10 — Complete price computability: modules, scale steps, service packages and renewal rules public, so the invoice for a 100-employee company and a 10-client consultancy is a two-minute exercise.
The External DPO
Per-platform pricing is unusually public: Shopify plans at six and thirty US dollars per month, Wix Premium at seven euros per month, WordPress Premium from seven euros per month per domain, plus a 14-day trial and a free tier. The page-count scale steps and the tiers aimed at larger businesses and enterprises carry no public prices, so the real invoice for a bigger client is not computable from these pages alone. 1 7 8
The In-House Counsel
Real monthly figures are public for the app editions — Wix Premium at €7 per month, Shopify Essential at $6 and Pro at $30 — alongside free tiers and a 14-day trial. But the captured pages give no figures for the core website plans or the Advanced tier, and WordPress Premium is stated as "from €7" per domain with pricing by page count, so the invoice at scale cannot be computed from public pages. 1 7 8
The Drafted Generalist
Per-platform monthly prices are published with a free tier and a 14-day trial — Shopify Essential at $6 a month and Pro at $30 a month, Wix Premium at €7 a month, WordPress Premium from €7 a month per domain. But WordPress pricing scales by page count, and we found no public information on prices for the add-ons or the Usercentrics Advanced tier aimed at Advanced Business and Enterprise, so my invoice at company scale is not computable from these pages. 8 1
The Lead Auditor
The self-serve editions carry stated monthly figures — Shopify Essential at USD 6 and Pro at USD 30, Wix Premium at EUR 7, WordPress Premium from EUR 7 per domain — with free tiers and a fourteen day trial published. The WordPress scale is only priced "from" by page count, and I found no public prices for the Advanced Business and Enterprise tiers or for the add-ons, so a real total for larger buyers is not computable from the pages. 1 7 8
The IT Integrator
The CMS editions carry real monthly numbers — Shopify Essential at $6 and Shopify Pro at $30, Wix Premium at €7, WordPress Premium from €7 per domain — with a free-forever tier and a 14-day trial stated. The rest is not computable: WordPress scales by page count without the tiers shown, and the Core and Advanced business tiers and the add-ons carry no public prices. 1 7 8
The Skeptic
The app editions carry real numbers — Shopify Free at 0 USD, Essential at 6 USD and Pro at 30 USD monthly, Wix Premium at 7 EUR monthly, WordPress Premium from 7 EUR monthly per domain — with a 14-day free trial. The WordPress scale runs on flexible pricing by page count whose steps we could not find publicly, and we found no public information on prices for the Cookiebot Core and Usercentrics Advanced tiers aimed at business and enterprise audiences. 1 7 8
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Cookiebot
Is Cookiebot European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Cookiebot is based.
Where does Cookiebot store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does Cookiebot have a free plan?
Yes. Cookiebot has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Cookiebot?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates preeco | datenschutz (4/5), Dastra (3/5) and caralegal (3/5) highest among the other 41 Data Protection 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 preeco | datenschutz (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Cookiebot alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 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. 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.
- 9 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
- 6 subprocessors 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
- 1 compliance fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 data fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 hosting fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 legal fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 pricing fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.cookiebot.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Legal notice — found from the homepage www.cookiebot.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.cookiebot.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.cookiebot.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap www.cookiebot.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Privacy regime coverage — found from sitemap www.cookiebot.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Audit readiness & evidence — found from sitemap www.cookiebot.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.cookiebot.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.cookiebot.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →