--- title: "Enzuzo vs OneTrust" canonical: "https://cookiebench.com/compare/enzuzo-vs-onetrust" last-updated: "2026-10-12" --- # Enzuzo vs OneTrust: cookie banner speed and features On desktop, Enzuzo showed its banner sooner, in a median 477 ms against 629 ms for OneTrust. Enzuzo delayed the main content by 4 ms. OneTrust added no measurable delay. Both held trackers back in every check. Per vendor docs, only Enzuzo offers a free tier. Per vendor docs, only OneTrust offers self-hosting. 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 | Enzuzo | OneTrust | Difference | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | How fast does the banner appear? | 477 ms | 629 ms | Enzuzo’s banner appeared 153 ms sooner. | | Does it slow the page down? | +4 ms | No measurable change | Enzuzo delayed the main content by 4 ms. OneTrust added no measurable delay. | | How fast does a click respond? | 24 ms | 24 ms | About the same. They are less than 16 ms apart. | | Does it block trackers until consent? | 4 of 4 checks passed | 4 of 4 checks passed | Both held trackers back in every check. | | How much does it add to the page? | +153 KB | +211 KB (95% interval: 211 KB) | Enzuzo added 58 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, Enzuzo showed its banner sooner, in a median 2.75 s against 3.92 s for OneTrust. OneTrust delayed the main content 292 ms less. Both held trackers back in every check. Per vendor docs, only Enzuzo offers a free tier. Per vendor docs, only OneTrust offers self-hosting. | Question | Enzuzo | OneTrust | Difference | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | How fast does the banner appear? | 2.75 s | 3.92 s | Enzuzo’s banner appeared 1.16 s sooner. | | Does it slow the page down? | +768 ms | +476 ms (95% interval 444 ms to 508 ms) | OneTrust delayed the main content 292 ms less. | | How fast does a click respond? | 56 ms | 16 ms | OneTrust responded 40 ms sooner. Both are under 200 ms, which feels instant. | | Does it block trackers until consent? | 4 of 4 checks passed | 4 of 4 checks passed | Both held trackers back in every check. | | How much does it add to the page? | +153 KB | +211 KB (95% interval: 211 KB) | Enzuzo added 58 KB less to the first load. | ## Which features differ? | Feature | Enzuzo | OneTrust | | --- | --- | --- | | IAB TCF | Per vendor docs (Growth plan and up) | Per vendor docs (TCF v2.2 and v2.3) | | IAB GPP | Unknown | Per vendor docs | | 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 | | Geo-targeted banners | Per vendor docs (Growth plan and up) | Per vendor docs | | Script blocking | Per vendor docs | Per vendor docs | | Consent records | Per vendor docs | Per vendor docs | | Cookie scanning | Per vendor docs | Per vendor docs | | Open source | Not supported (Hosted embed only) | Not supported (Proprietary) | | Self-hostable | Not supported (Hosted embed only) | Partial (Script only; hosted backend) | | Headless UI | Per vendor docs (Enterprise plan) | Partial (Mobile and CTV only) | | TypeScript types | Unknown | Unknown | | Free tier | Per vendor docs (5,000 visitors a month) | Not supported (Quote-based pricing) | | Script tag | Per vendor docs | Per vendor docs | | React SDK | Not supported (Script tag only) | 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 Enzuzo if - You want a free tier - A fast banner matters to you: Enzuzo’s banner appeared 153 ms sooner - Page weight matters to you: Enzuzo added 58 KB less to the first load ### Choose OneTrust if - You want self-hosting - Page load time matters to you: Enzuzo delayed the main content by 4 ms. OneTrust added no measurable delay ## Questions about this pair ### Is OneTrust slower than Enzuzo? On the desktop profile, Enzuzo’s banner appeared in a median 477 ms and OneTrust’s in 629 ms. Enzuzo delayed the main content by 4 ms. OneTrust added no measurable delay. ### Do Enzuzo and OneTrust both support IAB TCF? Both document it. Statuses come from vendor docs. ### Do Enzuzo and OneTrust block trackers before consent? 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. ## Related comparisons - [c15t vs OneTrust](https://cookiebench.com/compare/c15t-vs-onetrust.md) - [c15t vs Enzuzo](https://cookiebench.com/compare/c15t-vs-enzuzo.md) - [OneTrust vs Didomi](https://cookiebench.com/compare/onetrust-vs-didomi.md) - [CookieYes vs OneTrust](https://cookiebench.com/compare/cookieyes-vs-onetrust.md) - [OneTrust vs Usercentrics](https://cookiebench.com/compare/onetrust-vs-usercentrics.md) - [Osano vs OneTrust](https://cookiebench.com/compare/osano-vs-onetrust.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".