Osano vs Usercentrics: cookie banner speed and features compared
On emulated mobile, Osano showed its banner sooner, in a median 2.15 s against 4.16 s for Usercentrics. Osano delayed the main content 420 ms less. Osano failed 2 of 4 checks: the accept check failed and the reject check failed. Usercentrics failed none. Per vendor docs, only Osano offers open-source code.
Osano Tested: Hosted
All Osano results
Usercentrics Tested: Hosted
All Usercentrics results
Which is faster, Osano or Usercentrics?
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 | 4.16 s | Osano’s banner appeared 2.01 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 | +844 ms95% interval 836 ms to 864 ms | Osano delayed the main content 420 ms less. |
| Click responds inTime from pressing Accept until the screen updates. Under 200 ms feels instant. | 128 msOne visit measured | No comparison. Usercentrics has no result here, so we call neither one better. | |
| 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. Usercentrics 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 | +164 KB95% interval: 164 KB | Osano added 79 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 We do not publish a direct head-to-head interval yet.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 | Usercentrics |
|---|---|---|
| TTFB | No measurable delaypage 5 ms | No measurable delaypage 7 ms |
| FCP | No measurable delaypage 248 ms | No measurable delaypage 252 ms |
| LCP | +424 mspage 3.87 s | +844 mspage 4.30 s |
| CLS | No measurable shiftpage 0.00 | No measurable shiftpage 0.00 |
| Metric | Osano | Usercentrics |
|---|---|---|
| CMP script requested | ||
| CMP script loaded | ||
| Consent state known | ||
| Banner visible | 2.15 s | 4.16 s |
| Metric | Osano | Usercentrics |
|---|---|---|
| Screen responds | 128 ms | |
| Banner gone | ||
| Consent applied | ||
| Analytics active |
Which features differ between Osano and Usercentrics?
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 | Usercentrics |
|---|---|---|
| Only Osano · 1 | ||
| Open sourceDeveloper | Older library only (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) | Commercial licence (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
| Not confirmed for one side · 1 | ||
| Headless UIDeveloper | Unknown | Per vendor docs (vendor documentation, opens in a new tab) |
Same on both · 14
Should you choose Osano or Usercentrics?
We built these lists from the measured and documented differences above. Neither list is a recommendation.
Choose Osano if
- You want open-source code
- A fast banner matters to you: Osano’s banner appeared 2.01 s sooner
- Page load time matters to you: Osano delayed the main content 420 ms less
- Page weight matters to you: Osano added 79 KB less to the first load
Choose Usercentrics if
- 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 Usercentrics
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 Usercentrics’ in 4.16 s. Osano delayed the main content 420 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. Usercentrics 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
Usercentricsc15t’s banner 3.92 s sooner · 1 standard differsc15tvs
Osanoc15t’s banner 1.91 s sooner · 1 standard differsOneTrustvs
UsercentricsBanner times about the same · 2 features differ
OsanovsOneTrustOsano’s banner 1.76 s sooner · 3 features differ
Didomivs
UsercentricsBanner times about the same · 2 features differc15tvs
OneTrustc15t’s banner 3.68 s sooner · 1 standard differs