Skip to main contentHow fast does the banner appear?
424 ms
Median of 15 visits.
All 6 integrations, best first
- Astro412 ms
- Script tag424 ms
- React443 ms
- TanStack Start463 ms
- Next.js477 ms
- Nuxt480 ms
EnzuzoEnzuzoEnzuzo cookie banner: speed and features
In our tests with its Script tag integration, Enzuzo showed its cookie banner in a median 424 ms on desktop. It delayed the main content by 0 ms. Accept responded in under 16 ms and Reject in 16 ms. It held trackers back in all 4 consent checks.
On an emulated mid-tier phone, the banner took 2.32 s. Per vendor docs, Enzuzo supports IAB TCF, Google Consent Mode v2, Google CMP certification and Global Privacy Control. We could not confirm IAB GPP.
How fast is Enzuzo’s cookie banner?
On Script tag. We measured other CMPs on Next.js only, so this comparison uses Enzuzo’s other integrations.
Does it slow the page down?
0 ms
Compared with the same page without a consent manager. There were too few paired visits to calculate an interval.
All 6 integrations, best first
- React−4 ms
- Script tag0 ms
- Next.js4 ms
- Nuxt4 ms
- TanStack Start4 ms
- Astro8 ms
How fast does a click respond?
Under 16 msOne visit measured
Reject responded in 16 ms. Under 200 ms feels instant.
All 6 integrations, best first
- Nuxt16 ms
- Astro16 ms
- React16 ms
- Script tag16 ms
- Next.js24 ms
- TanStack Start24 ms
Does it block trackers until consent?
4 of 4consent checks passed
No tracker ran and the page set no cookie before the visitor chose.
All 6 integrations, best first
- Next.js100%
- Nuxt100%
- Astro100%
- TanStack Start100%
- React100%
- Script tag100%
Which standards and features does Enzuzo support?
Each status comes from Enzuzo’s documentation. CookieBench does not test these features unless a line says so.
- Verified by test
- Per vendor docs
- Partial
- Not supported
- Unknown
| Feature | Status |
|---|---|
| IAB TCF | Growth plan and up (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| IAB GPP | Unknown |
| Google Consent Mode v2 | Per vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Google-certified CMP | Per vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Global Privacy Control | Per vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Feature | Status |
|---|---|
| Geo-targeted banners | Growth plan and up (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Script blocking | Per vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Consent records | Per vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Cookie scanning | Per vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Feature | Status |
|---|---|
| Open source | Hosted embed only (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Self-hostable | Hosted embed only (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Headless UI | Enterprise plan (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| TypeScript types | Unknown |
| Feature | Status |
|---|---|
| Free tier | 5,000 visitors a month (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
Which frameworks does Enzuzo support?
- First-party SDKs
- None
- Script tag
- Supported
- Measured in this run
- Script tag, React, Next.js, Nuxt, Astro and TanStack Start
Support per Enzuzo’s documentation (opens in a new tab).
Enzuzo’s results by framework, desktop
Each row is a separate app. We measured each one against the same app without a consent manager. The rows compare integrations, not frameworks.
| Framework | Banner appears | Page slowed by | Click responds in | Trackers blocked |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Script tagShown above | 424 ms | 0 ms | Under 16 msOne visit measured | 4 of 4 passed |
| React | 443 ms | −4 ms | 16 msOne visit measured | 4 of 4 passed |
| Next.jsShared with every CMP | 477 ms | +4 ms | 24 msOne visit measured | 4 of 4 passed |
| Nuxt | 480 ms | +4 ms | 16 msOne visit measured | 4 of 4 passed |
| Astro | 412 ms | +8 ms | 16 msOne visit measured | 4 of 4 passed |
| TanStack Start | 463 ms | +4 ms | 24 msOne visit measured | 4 of 4 passed |
Were there problems testing Enzuzo?
We show each missing answer as missing, never as zero.
Desktop
- Its remote script or config changed during the run, so the run gives no confidence intervals for this cell. Differences are medians only.
Mobile (emulated)
- Its remote script or config changed during the run, so the run gives no confidence intervals for this cell. Differences are medians only.
When does Enzuzo load, and what does it cost the page?
Lab detail for engineers. All Core Web Vitals are here. The summary leaves some of them out.
When does Enzuzo start loading?
The banner was visible at 424 ms. The published results do not show when Enzuzo started to load.
| Event | Time from navigation |
|---|---|
| First byte (TTFB) | 2 ms |
| First paint (FCP) | 40 ms |
| Largest paint (LCP) | 100 ms |
| Banner visible | 424 ms |
| CMP requested | |
| CMP loaded | |
| Consent state known |
How do page vitals compare with no consent manager?
Each row shows the value on the page with the consent manager. It also shows how far the value moved from the same page without one.
| Measure | With Enzuzo | Difference |
|---|---|---|
| TTFBTime to first byte | 2 ms | 0 msNo interval reported |
| FCPFirst Contentful Paint | 40 ms | −8 msNo interval reported |
| LCPLargest Contentful Paint | 100 ms | 0 msNo interval reported |
| CLSCumulative Layout Shift | 0.00 | 0.00No interval reported |
| Primary content paintThe page’s main content, not the banner | 100 ms | 0 msNo interval reported |
What was the largest element on screen?
LCP times the largest element on screen. If that is the banner, LCP measures the banner instead of the page.
There is no LCP attribution for this profile and framework.
What happens after a visitor clicks Accept?
The screen responded to Accept in 16 ms.
| Event | Time from the click |
|---|---|
| Screen responds | Under 16 ms |
| Banner gone | |
| Consent applied | |
| Analytics active |
How much does it download?
Initial transfer happens before the page settles. Deferred transfer comes after.
| Measure | With Enzuzo | Difference |
|---|---|---|
| Initial transferBytes before the page settles | 652 KB | +153 KBNo interval reported |
| Deferred transferBytes loaded later | Not compared | |
| RequestsAll requests | 8 | +2No interval reported |
| Third-party requestsRequests to other hosts | 2 | +2No interval reported |
Does it block the main thread?
Long tasks are stretches over 50 ms when the page cannot respond to taps or keys.
| Measure | With Enzuzo | Difference |
|---|---|---|
| Long-task timeBlocking time during load | 43 ms | +43 msNo interval reported |
What do returning visitors see?
A visitor who accepted on an earlier visit comes back. We check that the banner stays hidden.
- Banner stayed hidden
- Consent state known at
What was tested?
- Methodology
- cookiebench-v3.2.4
- Analysis
matrix-2026-10-11
On desktop, it appeared in a median 477 ms, against 471 ms for the median of the 10 CMPs measured. On an emulated mid-tier phone, it appeared in a median 2.75 s, against 2.71 s for the median of the 10 CMPs measured.
On desktop it delayed the main content by 4 ms. On an emulated mid-tier phone it delayed the main content by 768 ms. Delay is the extra time before the main content appears. We compare Largest Contentful Paint on the same page, with and without a consent manager.
It passed 4 of 4 checks on desktop and on an emulated mid-tier phone. A check fails if a tracker runs, the page sets a cookie or data leaves the page before the visitor chooses.
Per vendor docs, Enzuzo supports IAB TCF, Google Consent Mode v2, Google CMP certification and Global Privacy Control. We could not confirm IAB GPP. Feature support comes from Enzuzo’s documentation. CookieBench did not test these features itself.
