c15t vs iubenda: cookie banner speed and features compared
On emulated mobile, c15t showed its banner sooner, in a median 240 ms against 2.66 s for iubenda. c15t delayed the main content 204 ms less. Both held trackers back in every check. Per vendor docs, only c15t offers open-source code and self-hosting. Per vendor docs, only iubenda offers a Google-certified CMP.
c15t Tested: 3.0.0-alpha.10
All c15t results
iubenda Tested: Hosted
All iubenda results
Which is faster, c15t or iubenda?
Shorter bars are better. The exception is tracker blocking, where the bar shows the share of checks passed.
| Question | Difference | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Banner appearsTime from navigation until the banner is visible on screen. Lower is better. | 240 ms | 2.66 s | c15t’s banner appeared 2.42 s sooner. |
| Page slowed byExtra time before the main content paints (LCP), compared with the same page without a consent manager. | +408 ms95% interval 396 ms to 420 ms | +612 ms95% interval 600 ms to 624 ms | c15t delayed the main content 204 ms less. |
| Click responds inTime from pressing Accept until the screen updates. Under 200 ms feels instant. | 32 msOne visit measured | 32 msOne visit measured | 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 passed | 4 of 4 checks passed | 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 KB | +122 KB95% interval: 122 KB | c15t added 10 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 We do not publish a direct head-to-head interval yet.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 mobile profile. Both CMPs ran on Next.js 16.
| Metric | c15t | iubenda |
|---|---|---|
| TTFB | +15 mspage 21 ms | No measurable delaypage 6 ms |
| FCP | +28 mspage 268 ms | No measurable delaypage 252 ms |
| LCP | +408 mspage 3.86 s | +612 mspage 4.06 s |
| CLS | No measurable shiftpage 0.00 | No measurable shiftpage 0.00 |
| Metric | c15t | iubenda |
|---|---|---|
| CMP script requested | ||
| CMP script loaded | ||
| Consent state known | 1.98 s | |
| Banner visible | 240 ms | 2.66 s |
| Metric | c15t | iubenda |
|---|---|---|
| Screen responds | 32 ms | 32 ms |
| Banner gone | ||
| Consent applied | ||
| Analytics active |
Which features differ between c15t and iubenda?
Statuses come from each vendor’s documentation. Each status links to its source.
- Verified by test
- Per vendor docs
- Partial
- Not supported
- Unknown
| Feature | c15t | iubenda |
|---|---|---|
| Only c15t · 3 | ||
| Open sourceDeveloper | Apache-2.0 (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) | Hosted embed only (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Self-hostableDeveloper | Per vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) | Hosted embed only (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| First-party SDKsFrameworks | React, 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 iubenda · 1 | ||
| Google-certified CMPStandards | Not 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 · 1 | ||
| TypeScript typesDeveloper | Per vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) | Unknown |
Same on both · 11
Should you choose c15t or iubenda?
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 2.42 s sooner
- Page load time matters to you: c15t delayed the main content 204 ms less
Choose iubenda 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. iubenda ran from its vendor-hosted service. Network distance to each vendor is part of the result.
Questions about c15t and iubenda
Answers come from the benchmark run and from each vendor’s documentation.
On the emulated mobile profile, c15t’s banner appeared in a median 240 ms and iubenda’s in 2.66 s. c15t delayed the main content 204 ms less.
No, per vendor docs. iubenda documents Google-certified CMP support. c15t does not.
Both held trackers back in every check. Each check loads the page. Then it looks for trackers that ran, cookies that the page set or data that left the page before the visitor chose.
Other comparisons
c15tvs
OneTrustc15t’s banner 3.67 s sooner · 1 standard differs
c15tvs
CookieYesc15t’s banner 2.18 s sooner · 1 standard differsc15tvs
Usercentricsc15t’s banner 3.92 s sooner · 1 standard differsc15tvs
Didomic15t’s banner 4.17 s sooner · 1 standard differsc15tvs
Osanoc15t’s banner 1.91 s sooner · 1 standard differsc15tvs
Ketchc15t’s banner 7.71 s sooner · 1 standard differs