Skip to main content

c15t vs Enzuzo: cookie banner speed and features compared

Results for

On desktop, c15t showed its banner sooner, in a median 60 ms against 477 ms for Enzuzo. Their delay to the main content was about the same. They are less than 16 ms apart. Both held trackers back in every check. Per vendor docs, only c15t offers open-source code and self-hosting. Per vendor docs, only Enzuzo offers a Google-certified CMP.

c15tinth

c15t Tested: 3.0.0-alpha.10
All c15t results

EnzuzoEnzuzo

Enzuzo Tested: Hosted
All Enzuzo results

Which is faster, c15t or Enzuzo?

Shorter bars are better. The exception is tracker blocking, where the bar shows the share of checks passed.

c15t and Enzuzo on the desktop profile, Next.js 16
Questionc15tEnzuzoDifference
Banner appearsTime from navigation until the banner is visible on screen. Lower is better.
60 msFast
477 msModerate

c15t’s banner appeared 417 ms sooner.

Page slowed byExtra time before the main content paints (LCP), compared with the same page without a consent manager.
+16 ms95% interval 8 ms to 40 msSmall
+4 msSmall

About the same. They are less than 16 ms apart.

Click responds inTime from pressing Accept until the screen updates. Under 200 ms feels instant.
16 msOne visit measuredFast
24 msOne visit measuredFast

About the same. They are less than 16 ms apart.

Blocks trackersChecks that no tracker runs, the page sets no cookie and no data leaves the page before the visitor chooses.
4 of 4 checks passedBlocked
4 of 4 checks passedBlocked

Both held trackers back in every check.

Adds to pageExtra data transferred during the first load, compared with the same page without a consent manager.
+112 KB95% interval: 112 KBModerate
+153 KBModerate

c15t added 41 KB less to the first load.

“About the same” means that the two results fall within each other’s spread. We measure both against the same page without a consent manager. We do not publish a direct head-to-head interval yet.

Page vitals and load times

Lab detail for engineers. All values are medians on the desktop profile. Both CMPs ran on Next.js 16.

Page vitalsChange against the same page without a consent manager.
Metricc15tEnzuzo
TTFB+17 mspage 22 ms+0 mspage 6 ms
FCP+28 mspage 92 ms0 mspage 64 ms
LCP+16 mspage 148 ms+4 mspage 124 ms
CLSNo measurable shiftpage 0.00No measurable shiftpage 0.00
Load timesMilliseconds from navigation.
Metricc15tEnzuzo
CMP script requested
CMP script loaded
Consent state known166 ms
Banner visible60 ms477 ms
After AcceptMilliseconds from the click.
Metricc15tEnzuzo
Screen responds16 ms24 ms
Banner gone
Consent applied
Analytics active

Which features differ between c15t and Enzuzo?

Statuses come from each vendor’s documentation. Each status links to its source.

  • Verified by test
  • Per vendor docs
  • Partial
  • Not supported
  • Unknown
Features that differ between c15t and Enzuzo, from vendor docs
Featurec15tEnzuzo
Only c15t · 3
Open sourceDeveloperApache-2.0 (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)Hosted embed only (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)
Self-hostableDeveloperPer vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)Hosted embed only (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)
First-party SDKsFrameworksReact, Next.js, Vue, Nuxt, Svelte, SvelteKit, Astro, TanStack Start (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)Script tag only (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)
Only Enzuzo · 1
Google-certified CMPStandardsNot on Google’s list (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)Per vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)
Not confirmed for one side · 2
IAB GPPStandardsGPP 1.1 (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)Unknown
TypeScript typesDeveloperPer vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)Unknown
Same on both · 10
Features with the same status for c15t and Enzuzo
Featurec15tEnzuzo
IAB TCFStandardsPer vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)Growth plan and up (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)
Google Consent Mode v2StandardsPer vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)Per vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)
Global Privacy ControlStandardsPer vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)Per vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)
Geo-targeted bannersCompliancePer vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)Growth plan and up (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)
Script blockingCompliancePer vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)Per vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)
Consent recordsComplianceWith a backend (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)Per vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)
Cookie scanningComplianceVia Inth Website Audit (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)Per vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)
Headless UIDeveloperPer vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)Enterprise plan (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)
Free tierPricingOpen source; hosted free plan (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)5,000 visitors a month (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)
Script tagFrameworksPer vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)Per vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab)

Should you choose c15t or Enzuzo?

We built these lists from the measured and documented differences above. Neither list is a recommendation.

Choose c15t if

  • You want open-source code and self-hosting
  • You want a first-party SDK for React, Next.js, Vue, Nuxt, Svelte, SvelteKit, Astro and TanStack Start
  • A fast banner matters to you: c15t’s banner appeared 417 ms sooner
  • Page weight matters to you: c15t added 41 KB less to the first load

Choose Enzuzo if

  • You need a Google-certified CMP

What was tested?

Deployment
Both ran as hosted services. c15t ran against the hosted inth backend, not a local mock. Enzuzo ran from its vendor-hosted service. Network distance to each vendor is part of the result.

How we test: methodology cookiebench-v3.2.4

Questions about c15t and Enzuzo

Answers come from the benchmark run and from each vendor’s documentation.

On the desktop profile, c15t’s banner appeared in a median 60 ms and Enzuzo’s in 477 ms. Their delay to the main content was about the same. They are less than 16 ms apart.