# Sirdata CMP — Data Protection

Sirdata CMP by SIRDATA SAS holds a panel rating of 0.5/5 from 6 AI judges (category median 2.5/5), as of 2026-10-15. Provenance: provenance unknown; sovereignty: not determined.

- Vendor: SIRDATA SAS (https://sirdata.com)
- Category: [Data Protection](https://whats-best.ai/software/data-protection.md)
- Provenance (editorial classification): provenance unknown
- Canonical page: https://whats-best.ai/software/data-protection/sirdata-cmp
- Alternatives: https://whats-best.ai/software/data-protection/sirdata-cmp/alternatives ([markdown](https://whats-best.ai/software/data-protection/sirdata-cmp/alternatives.md))
- Data as of: 2026-10-21 · evaluated 2026-10-15 · oldest source captured 2026-10-13

**AI-generated.** Every score, rationale and verdict here is written by a panel of AI judges from public evidence — an analysis, not a hands-on test. Every fact quotes the vendor page it was read from. No score can be bought. How scores are made: https://whats-best.ai/methodology

## At a glance

- Vendor: SIRDATA SAS
- Headquarters: Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting: Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan: Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026

## The panel's verdict

Sirdata CMP (vendor SIRDATA SAS) was judged from a single captured vendor page that markets consent and advertising tooling — audience insights, contextual targeting, cookieless predictive audiences and server-side Google Tag Manager deployment — and the scores follow that positioning. Its strength is connectivity: integrations and automation scores cluster at 3-4, resting on three named APIs (Sirdata, Semantic, ABconsent), a GitHub presence and the tag-manager deployment path. The compliance core sits at the floor: privacy management, rights and incident handling, and audit readiness each show a maximum score of 0, and framework coverage spans 0-2 because the captured page names no privacy regime. The genuine split is sovereignty: four of six judges scored 4 on the vendor's stated EU server location and French entity form; the lead auditor scored 3 and the skeptic 1, because the captured sentence — "100% of our servers in" — truncates before naming any location, and no DPA, subprocessor list or data center is documented. No public pricing was found.

**Speaks for it:**
- Named APIs — Sirdata, Semantic and ABconsent — plus a GitHub presence go beyond file import, with integration scores at 3-4
- Server-side Google Tag Manager deployment is confirmed on the captured page
- Consent and audience capabilities are confirmed, including cookieless predictive audiences and contextual targeting
- Four of six judges scored sovereignty 4, citing the vendor's stated EU server location and its French entity form

**Held against it:**
- Privacy management, rights and incident handling, and audit readiness each show a maximum score of 0
- No records of processing, DPIA workflows, processor and DPA management or TOMs found on the captured page
- Nothing found on data subject requests, statutory deadlines, breach registers or authority notification output
- Framework coverage spans 0-2; the captured page names no privacy regime it operationalizes
- No published DPA, subprocessor list or named data centers found; no sovereignty attributes are on record and the captured servers sentence truncates before a location

**Best for:**
- You run a server-side Google Tag Manager stack and want a consent platform wired in via named APIs — the 3-4 integration scores rest on exactly those interfaces
- You are buying a consent and audience platform for cookieless advertising, with confirmed contextual targeting and predictive audiences
- An EU hosting claim matters to your shortlist — four of six judges scored that 4 — provided you verify the processor chain with the vendor

**Avoid if:**
- You need a records-of-processing register, DPIA workflows or TOM management — the captured page instead markets audience and contextual targeting, and privacy management tops out at 0
- You must run data subject requests and breach notification on statutory clocks — the captured material speaks to marketing consent signals instead, and rights and incident handling also tops out at 0
- You operate under several privacy regimes — the page names none, and framework coverage spans 0-2
- You need a documented processor chain before signing — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it

## Scores by judge and criterion

Scores out of 5, each judge scoring independently against the published rubric (v2). "n/r" = not rated: the vendor publishes no price.

| Criterion | The External DPO | The In-House Counsel | The Drafted Generalist | The Lead Auditor | The IT Integrator | The Skeptic |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Records & DPIA depth | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 |
| Data subject rights & incidents | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 |
| Privacy regime coverage | 0.5/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 1/5 | 0.5/5 | 0/5 |
| Audit readiness & evidence | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 | 0/5 |
| Integrations & automation | 2/5 | 1.5/5 | 2/5 | 2/5 | 2/5 | 2/5 |
| European sovereignty | 2/5 | 2/5 | 2/5 | 1.5/5 | 2/5 | 0.5/5 |
| Pricing transparency | n/r | n/r | n/r | n/r | n/r | n/r |
| **Weighted verdict** | **0.5/5** | **0.5/5** | **0.5/5** | **0.5/5** | **1/5** | **0.5/5** |

### The judges

- **The External DPO** (v2.0): Carries thirty client mandates and bills by the hour they save. Optimizes for multi-client capability, reusable templates, a RoPA that drives the rest, and client-ready reports. Rejects single-tenant tools that treat the consultancy as thirty separate customers.
- **The In-House Counsel** (v2.0): Answers personally when the authority writes. Optimizes for defensibility: request clocks that never slip, a breach workflow that produces the Art. 33 notification, regime coverage that matches where the company actually operates. Rejects tools whose legal content nobody maintains.
- **The Drafted Generalist** (v2.1): Office manager at an 80-employee firm who got compliance added to her job title, not her calendar. Optimizes for guided workflows in plain language and software that knows the law so she does not have to. Rejects consultant-shaped platforms that assume a compliance department.
- **The Lead Auditor** (v2.0): Audits management systems for a living and has seen every folder of screenshots. Optimizes for revision-safe history, evidence packs on demand, and a defensible answer to "show me the state on date X". Rejects systems where the audit trail is assembled the week before the audit.
- **The IT Integrator** (v2.0): Has to feed the compliance platform from the estate that already exists: Entra ID, Jira, the CMDB. Optimizes for directory import, a real API, webhooks and SSO — compliance data that stays current because it syncs, not because someone retypes it. Rejects data islands with a CSV drawbridge.
- **The Skeptic** (v2.1): Hunts certification logos that link nowhere, "AI-powered" features with no substance behind them, consulting bundled as software, legal-update promises with no named lawyer, and customer counts that disagree between pages. Exists to keep the rest of the bench honest.

## European sovereignty — proven facts

No sovereignty finding yet.

## Key facts

Each fact is the vendor's own statement, cited to the source page it was read from ([S*n*] → Sources).

**Compliance**
- Consent choices validity: 6 [S1]
- Consent partners: 7 [S1]

**Hosting**
- Servers EU: 100 [S1]

**Integrations**
- Abconsent API: yes [S1]
- Github: yes [S1]
- Semantic API: yes [S1]
- Sirdata API: yes [S1]

**Legal**
- Address london: London · Chiswick High Road · UK [S1]
- Address paris: Paris · 20 rue Saint Fiacre · France [S1]

**Product**
- Audience insights: yes [S1]
- Audience targeting: yes [S1]
- Contextual targeting: yes [S1]
- Cookieless targeting: Creates user-centric and content-centric predictive audiences for targeting without cookies [S1]
- Gtm server side: yes [S1]

## Questions

### Is Sirdata CMP European?

Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Sirdata CMP is based.

### Where does Sirdata CMP store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.

### Does Sirdata CMP have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.

### What are the best alternatives to Sirdata CMP?

As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates [preeco | datenschutz (4/5)](https://whats-best.ai/software/data-protection/preeco), [Dastra (3/5)](https://whats-best.ai/software/data-protection/dastra) and [caralegal (3/5)](https://whats-best.ai/software/data-protection/caralegal) 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](https://whats-best.ai/software/data-protection/preeco) (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: [how scores are made](https://whats-best.ai/methodology#ordering). The full list, with European products first: [Sirdata CMP alternatives](https://whats-best.ai/software/data-protection/sirdata-cmp/alternatives).

## What this page leaves out

- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (sirdata.com). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page.
- 1 product 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.
- 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.

## Sources

- [S1] Vendor page: https://sirdata.com (checked 2026-10-13)

---

Cite as: whats-best.ai, "Sirdata CMP — Data Protection", AI panel analysis, as of 2026-10-21. https://whats-best.ai/software/data-protection/sirdata-cmp

Corrections: https://whats-best.ai/correct/782?target=page