--- title: "Didomi vs CookieYes" canonical: "https://cookiebench.com/compare/didomi-vs-cookieyes" last-updated: "2026-10-12" --- # Didomi vs CookieYes: cookie banner speed and features On desktop, Didomi and CookieYes showed their banners in about the same time. The medians were 466 ms for Didomi and 387 ms for CookieYes. Neither added a measurable delay. Neither leaked a tracker in the checks that ran. We could not run 1 of 4 checks for CookieYes. Per vendor docs, only CookieYes offers a free tier. We measured both in the same run, in a Next.js app. We measured each against the same page without a consent manager. They also share Script tag, React, Nuxt, Astro, TanStack Start integrations. ## Which is faster on desktop? Desktop profile: 1365 × 768 · No CPU slowdown · 12.5 MB/s, no added latency. | Question | Didomi | CookieYes | Difference | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | How fast does the banner appear? | 466 ms | 387 ms | About the same. The gap is under 20%, within run-to-run noise. | | Does it slow the page down? | No measurable change | No measurable change | Neither added a measurable delay. | | How fast does a click respond? | 16 ms | 16 ms | About the same. They are less than 16 ms apart. | | Does it block trackers until consent? | 4 of 4 checks passed | 3 of 4 checks passed. We could not check the other 1 | Neither leaked a tracker in the checks that ran. We could not run 1 of 4 checks for CookieYes. | | How much does it add to the page? | +253 KB (95% interval: 253 KB) | +31 KB (95% interval: 31 KB) | CookieYes added 222 KB less to the first load. | ## Which is faster on mobile? Mobile (emulated) profile: 390 × 844, DPR 3 · Mid-tier phone CPU (4× slowdown) · 200 KB/s, 150 ms latency. On emulated mobile, CookieYes showed its banner sooner, in a median 2.42 s against 4.41 s for Didomi. CookieYes delayed the main content 1.10 s less. Neither leaked a tracker in the checks that ran. We could not run 1 of 4 checks for CookieYes. Per vendor docs, only CookieYes offers a free tier. | Question | Didomi | CookieYes | Difference | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | How fast does the banner appear? | 4.41 s | 2.42 s | CookieYes’ banner appeared 1.99 s sooner. | | Does it slow the page down? | +1.28 s (95% interval 1.26 s to 1.29 s) | +176 ms (95% interval 148 ms to 212 ms) | CookieYes delayed the main content 1.10 s less. | | How fast does a click respond? | 16 ms | 24 ms | About the same. They are less than 16 ms apart. | | Does it block trackers until consent? | 4 of 4 checks passed | 3 of 4 checks passed. We could not check the other 1 | Neither leaked a tracker in the checks that ran. We could not run 1 of 4 checks for CookieYes. | | How much does it add to the page? | +253 KB (95% interval: 253 KB) | +31 KB (95% interval: 31 KB) | CookieYes added 222 KB less to the first load. | ## Which features differ? | Feature | Didomi | CookieYes | | --- | --- | --- | | IAB TCF | Per vendor docs (TCF v2.2) | Per vendor docs (Pro and Ultimate plans) | | IAB GPP | Per vendor docs | Unknown | | Google Consent Mode v2 | Per vendor docs | Per vendor docs | | Google-certified CMP | Per vendor docs | Per vendor docs | | Global Privacy Control | Per vendor docs | Per vendor docs (Pro and Ultimate plans) | | Geo-targeted banners | Per vendor docs | Per vendor docs (Pro and Ultimate plans) | | Script blocking | Per vendor docs (Tag-based) | Per vendor docs | | Consent records | Per vendor docs | Per vendor docs | | Cookie scanning | Per vendor docs | Per vendor docs | | Open source | Not supported (Proprietary) | Not supported (Proprietary) | | Self-hostable | Partial (Assets through your domain) | Unknown | | Headless UI | Per vendor docs | Unknown | | TypeScript types | Partial (React SDK only) | Unknown | | Free tier | Not supported (Contact sales) | Per vendor docs (5,000 pageviews a month) | | Script tag | Per vendor docs | Per vendor docs | | React SDK | Per vendor docs (First-party SDK) | Not supported (Script tag only) | | Next.js SDK | Not supported (Script tag only) | Not supported (Script tag only) | | Vue SDK | Not supported (Script tag only) | Not supported (Script tag only) | | Nuxt SDK | Not supported (Script tag only) | Not supported (Script tag only) | | Svelte SDK | Not supported (Script tag only) | Not supported (Script tag only) | | SvelteKit SDK | Not supported (Script tag only) | Not supported (Script tag only) | | Astro SDK | Not supported (Script tag only) | Not supported (Script tag only) | | TanStack Start SDK | Not supported (Script tag only) | Not supported (Script tag only) | ## Which should you choose? ### Choose Didomi if - You want a first-party SDK for React ### Choose CookieYes if - You want a free tier - Page weight matters to you: CookieYes added 222 KB less to the first load ## Questions about this pair ### Is Didomi faster than CookieYes? Not in a way this run can separate. Their banner times were about the same. The gap is under 20%, within run-to-run noise. Neither added a measurable delay. ### Do Didomi and CookieYes both support IAB TCF? Both document it. Statuses come from vendor docs. ### Do Didomi and CookieYes block trackers before consent? Neither leaked a tracker in the checks that ran. We could not run 1 of 4 checks for CookieYes. 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. ## Related comparisons - [c15t vs CookieYes](https://cookiebench.com/compare/c15t-vs-cookieyes.md) - [c15t vs Didomi](https://cookiebench.com/compare/c15t-vs-didomi.md) - [OneTrust vs Didomi](https://cookiebench.com/compare/onetrust-vs-didomi.md) - [CookieYes vs OneTrust](https://cookiebench.com/compare/cookieyes-vs-onetrust.md) - [iubenda vs CookieYes](https://cookiebench.com/compare/iubenda-vs-cookieyes.md) - [Didomi vs Usercentrics](https://cookiebench.com/compare/didomi-vs-usercentrics.md) Run `matrix-2026-10-12`, published 2026-10-12. Methodology [cookiebench-v3.2.4](https://cookiebench.com/methodology). inth, the team behind c15t, maintains CookieBench. c15t is one of the consent managers we measure ([disclosure](https://cookiebench.com/methodology)). Feature support comes from vendor documentation unless a row says "Verified by test".