Skip to main contentHow fast does the banner appear?
1.79 s
Median of 15 visits.
All 6 integrations, best first
- React1.75 s
- Script tag1.76 s
- Astro1.79 s
- Nuxt1.97 s
- TanStack Start2.00 s
- Next.js2.15 s
OsanoOsanoOsano cookie banner: speed and features
In our tests with its Astro integration, Osano showed its cookie banner in a median 1.79 s on an emulated mid-tier phone. It delayed the main content by 428 ms (95% interval 420 ms to 432 ms). Accept responded in 120 ms and Reject in 80 ms. It held trackers back in 2 of 4 consent checks. In 2, the accept check failed and the reject check failed.
On desktop, the banner took 649 ms. Per vendor docs, Osano supports IAB TCF, IAB GPP, Google Consent Mode v2, Google CMP certification and Global Privacy Control.
How fast is Osano’s cookie banner?
On Astro. We measured other CMPs on Next.js only, so this comparison uses Osano’s other integrations.
Does it slow the page down?
+428 ms95% interval 420 ms to 432 ms
Compared with the same page without a consent manager.
All 6 integrations, best first
- React384 ms
- Next.js424 ms
- Nuxt424 ms
- Astro428 ms
- TanStack Start428 ms
- Script tag432 ms
How fast does a click respond?
120 msOne visit measured
Reject responded in 80 ms. Under 200 ms feels instant.
All 6 integrations, best first
- Nuxt112 ms
- Astro120 ms
- React120 ms
- Script tag120 ms
- Next.js128 ms
- TanStack Start128 ms
Does it block trackers until consent?
2 of 4consent checks passed
In 2 of 4 checks, the accept check failed and the reject check failed.
All 6 integrations, best first
- Next.js50%
- Astro50%
- React50%
- Script tag50%
- Nuxt25%
- TanStack Start25%
Which standards and features does Osano support?
Each status comes from Osano’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 | TCF v2 (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| IAB GPP | Per vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| 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 | Per vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Script blocking | Paid plans (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Consent records | Paid plans (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Cookie scanning | Per vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Feature | Status |
|---|---|
| Open source | Older library only (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Self-hostable | Hosted script (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Headless UI | Unknown |
| TypeScript types | React Native SDK only (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Feature | Status |
|---|---|
| Free tier | About 5,000 pageviews a month (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
Which frameworks does Osano support?
- First-party SDKs
- None
- Script tag
- Supported
- Measured in this run
- Script tag, React, Next.js, Nuxt, Astro and TanStack Start
Support per Osano’s documentation (opens in a new tab).
Osano’s results by framework, mobile (emulated)
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 tag | 1.76 s | +432 ms95% interval 416 ms to 436 ms | 120 msOne visit measured | 2 of 4 passed |
| React | 1.75 s | +384 ms95% interval 348 ms to 420 ms | 120 msOne visit measured | 2 of 4 passed |
| Next.jsShared with every CMP | 2.15 s | +424 ms95% interval 420 ms to 428 ms | 128 msOne visit measured | 2 of 4 passed |
| Nuxt | 1.97 s | +424 ms95% interval 416 ms to 440 ms | 112 msOne visit measured | 1 of 4 passed |
| AstroShown above | 1.79 s | +428 ms95% interval 420 ms to 432 ms | 120 msOne visit measured | 2 of 4 passed |
| TanStack Start | 2.00 s | +428 ms95% interval 416 ms to 436 ms | 128 msOne visit measured | 1 of 4 passed |
Were there problems testing Osano?
We show each missing answer as missing, never as zero.
Mobile (emulated)
- Accept and reject closed the banner and consent took effect, but a page control clicked 500 ms later did not respond, so those checks failed.
Desktop: no issues recorded.
When does Osano 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 Osano start loading?
The banner was visible at 1.79 s. The published results do not show when Osano started to load.
| Event | Time from navigation |
|---|---|
| First byte (TTFB) | 5 ms |
| First paint (FCP) | 240 ms |
| Banner visible | 1.79 s |
| Largest paint (LCP) | 3.28 s |
| 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 Osano | Difference |
|---|---|---|
| TTFBTime to first byte | 5 ms | No measurable difference95% interval −1 ms to 1 ms |
| FCPFirst Contentful Paint | 240 ms | No measurable difference95% interval −4 ms to 20 ms |
| LCPLargest Contentful Paint | 3.28 s | +428 ms95% interval 420 ms to 432 ms |
| CLSCumulative Layout Shift | 0.00 | No measurable difference95% interval: 0.00 |
| Primary content paintThe page’s main content, not the banner | 3.28 s | +428 ms95% interval 420 ms to 432 ms |
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 120 ms.
| Event | Time from the click |
|---|---|
| Screen responds | 120 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 Osano | Difference |
|---|---|---|
| Initial transferBytes before the page settles | 583 KB | +85 KB95% interval: 85 KB |
| Deferred transferBytes loaded later | Not compared | |
| RequestsAll requests | 8 | +4No interval reported |
| Third-party requestsRequests to other hosts | 4 | +4No 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 Osano | Difference |
|---|---|---|
| Long-task timeBlocking time during load | 145 ms | +145 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 644 ms, against 471 ms for the median of the 10 CMPs measured. On an emulated mid-tier phone, it appeared in a median 2.15 s, against 2.71 s for the median of the 10 CMPs measured.
On desktop it added no measurable delay to the main content. On an emulated mid-tier phone it delayed the main content by 424 ms (95% interval 420 ms to 428 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.
On desktop it passed 4 of 4 checks. On an emulated mid-tier phone it passed 2 of 4 checks. In 2, the accept check failed and the reject check failed. A check fails if a tracker runs, the page sets a cookie or data leaves the page before the visitor chooses.
Per vendor docs, Osano supports IAB TCF, IAB GPP, Google Consent Mode v2, Google CMP certification and Global Privacy Control. Feature support comes from Osano’s documentation. CookieBench did not test these features itself.
