Osano vs OneTrust: cookie banner speed and features compared
On emulated mobile, Osano showed its banner sooner, in a median 2.15 s against 3.92 s for OneTrust. Osano delayed the main content 52 ms less. Osano failed 2 of 4 checks: the accept check failed and the reject check failed. OneTrust failed none. Per vendor docs, only Osano offers open-source code and a free tier. Per vendor docs, only OneTrust offers self-hosting.
Osano Tested: Hosted
All Osano results
OneTrust Tested: Hosted
All OneTrust results
Which is faster, Osano 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. | 2.15 s | 3.92 s | Osano’s banner appeared 1.76 s sooner. |
| Page slowed byExtra time before the main content paints (LCP), compared with the same page without a consent manager. | +424 ms95% interval 420 ms to 428 ms | +476 ms95% interval 444 ms to 508 ms | Osano delayed the main content 52 ms less. |
| Click responds inTime from pressing Accept until the screen updates. Under 200 ms feels instant. | 128 msOne visit measured | 16 msOne visit measured | OneTrust responded 112 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. | 2 of 4 checks passed2 failed: the accept check failed, the reject check failed | 4 of 4 checks passed | Osano failed 2 of 4 checks: the accept check failed and the reject check failed. OneTrust failed none. |
| Adds to pageExtra data transferred during the first load, compared with the same page without a consent manager. | +85 KB95% interval: 85 KB | +211 KB95% interval: 211 KB | Osano added 126 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 We do not publish a direct head-to-head interval yet.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 | Osano | OneTrust |
|---|---|---|
| TTFB | No measurable delaypage 5 ms | No measurable delaypage 6 ms |
| FCP | No measurable delaypage 248 ms | No measurable delaypage 248 ms |
| LCP | +424 mspage 3.87 s | +476 mspage 3.93 s |
| CLS | No measurable shiftpage 0.00 | No measurable shiftpage 0.00 |
| Metric | Osano | OneTrust |
|---|---|---|
| CMP script requested | ||
| CMP script loaded | ||
| Consent state known | ||
| Banner visible | 2.15 s | 3.92 s |
| Metric | Osano | OneTrust |
|---|---|---|
| Screen responds | 128 ms | 16 ms |
| Banner gone | ||
| Consent applied | ||
| Analytics active |
Which features differ between Osano 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 | Osano | OneTrust |
|---|---|---|
| Only Osano · 2 | ||
| Open sourceDeveloper | Older library only (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) | Proprietary (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Free tierPricing | About 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 script (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) | Script only; hosted backend (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Not confirmed for one side · 2 | ||
| Headless UIDeveloper | Unknown | Mobile and CTV only (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| TypeScript typesDeveloper | React Native SDK only (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) | Unknown |
Same on both · 11
Should you choose Osano or OneTrust?
We built these lists from the measured and documented differences above. Neither list is a recommendation.
Choose Osano if
- You want open-source code and a free tier
- A fast banner matters to you: Osano’s banner appeared 1.76 s sooner
- Page load time matters to you: Osano delayed the main content 52 ms less
- Page weight matters to you: Osano added 126 KB less to the first load
Choose OneTrust if
- You want self-hosting
- You want the one that failed fewer tracker-blocking checks in this run
What was tested?
- Deployment
- Both ran from their vendor-hosted services. Network distance to each vendor is part of the result.
Questions about Osano and OneTrust
Answers come from the benchmark run and from each vendor’s documentation.
On the emulated mobile profile, Osano’s banner appeared in a median 2.15 s and OneTrust’s in 3.92 s. Osano delayed the main content 52 ms less.
Both document it. Statuses come from vendor docs.
Osano failed 2 of 4 checks: the accept check failed and the reject check failed. OneTrust failed none. 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
Osanoc15t’s banner 1.91 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
KetchvsOneTrustOneTrust’s banner 4.03 s sooner · 3 features differ