iubenda vs OneTrust: cookie banner speed and features compared
On emulated mobile, iubenda showed its banner sooner, in a median 2.66 s against 3.92 s for OneTrust. OneTrust delayed the main content 136 ms less. Both held trackers back in every check. Per vendor docs, only iubenda offers a free tier. Per vendor docs, only OneTrust offers self-hosting.
iubenda Tested: Hosted
All iubenda results
OneTrust Tested: Hosted
All OneTrust results
Which is faster, iubenda or OneTrust?
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. | 2.66 s | 3.92 s | iubenda’s banner appeared 1.25 s sooner. |
| Page slowed byExtra time before the main content paints (LCP), compared with the same page without a consent manager. | +612 ms95% interval 600 ms to 624 ms | +476 ms95% interval 444 ms to 508 ms | OneTrust delayed the main content 136 ms less. |
| Click responds inTime from pressing Accept until the screen updates. Under 200 ms feels instant. | 32 msOne visit measured | 16 msOne visit measured | OneTrust responded 16 ms sooner. Both are under 200 ms, which feels instant. |
| 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. | +122 KB95% interval: 122 KB | +211 KB95% interval: 211 KB | iubenda added 90 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 We do not publish a direct head-to-head interval yet.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 | iubenda | OneTrust |
|---|---|---|
| TTFB | No measurable delaypage 6 ms | No measurable delaypage 6 ms |
| FCP | No measurable delaypage 252 ms | No measurable delaypage 248 ms |
| LCP | +612 mspage 4.06 s | +476 mspage 3.93 s |
| CLS | No measurable shiftpage 0.00 | No measurable shiftpage 0.00 |
| Metric | iubenda | OneTrust |
|---|---|---|
| CMP script requested | ||
| CMP script loaded | ||
| Consent state known | ||
| Banner visible | 2.66 s | 3.92 s |
| Metric | iubenda | OneTrust |
|---|---|---|
| Screen responds | 32 ms | 16 ms |
| Banner gone | ||
| Consent applied | ||
| Analytics active |
Which features differ between iubenda and OneTrust?
Statuses come from each vendor’s documentation. Each status links to its source.
- Verified by test
- Per vendor docs
- Partial
- Not supported
- Unknown
| Feature | iubenda | OneTrust |
|---|---|---|
| Only iubenda · 1 | ||
| Free tierPricing | Under 5,000 pageviews a month (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) | Quote-based pricing (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Only OneTrust · 1 | ||
| Self-hostableDeveloper | Hosted embed only (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) | Script only; hosted backend (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
Same on both · 14
Should you choose iubenda or OneTrust?
We built these lists from the measured and documented differences above. Neither list is a recommendation.
Choose iubenda if
- You want a free tier
- A fast banner matters to you: iubenda’s banner appeared 1.25 s sooner
- Page weight matters to you: iubenda added 90 KB less to the first load
Choose OneTrust if
- You want self-hosting
- Page load time matters to you: OneTrust delayed the main content 136 ms less
What was tested?
- Deployment
- Both ran from their vendor-hosted services. Network distance to each vendor is part of the result.
Questions about iubenda and OneTrust
Answers come from the benchmark run and from each vendor’s documentation.
On the emulated mobile profile, iubenda’s banner appeared in a median 2.66 s and OneTrust’s in 3.92 s. OneTrust delayed the main content 136 ms less.
Both document it. Statuses come from vendor docs.
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 3.68 s sooner · 1 standard differs
c15tvs
iubendac15t’s banner 2.42 s sooner · 1 standard differsOneTrustvs
DidomiBanner times about the same · 1 framework SDK differs
CookieYesvsOneTrustCookieYes’ banner 1.50 s sooner · 1 feature differs
OneTrustvs
UsercentricsBanner times about the same · 2 features differ
OsanovsOneTrustOsano’s banner 1.76 s sooner · 3 features differ