Usercentrics, measured on the 60 sites that ran it
Usercentrics is a consent management platform: the banner that asks a visitor what they will allow, stores the answer, and hands that answer to the tags on the page. If you have clicked a cookie box on a German or Austrian site, there is a fair chance this is the software that drew it. This index detected it on 60 of the 5,294 sites measured, which makes it the sixth-largest of the nine consent tools the crawl can identify by name. What stands out about those 60 sites is not weight. It is that on both measures tied to the pre-consent window, they sit at the bottom of the nine.
Ninth of nine on early contact, and still 55 sites
On 55 of the 60 sites, at least one company was contacted before the banner could have been answered: 91.7%. Among the nine consent tools this index breaks out, that share ranks ninth of nine, where rank 1 is the highest share. The median count of companies contacted inside that window was 4, which also ranks ninth of nine.
Both of those are real and both are small comfort. Ranking last on a measure where the top of the range is the whole set of sites means the distance between Usercentrics and the rest is five sites. The measure is also a fact about the sites, not about the software: the crawl records, per site, how many companies arrived inside the window, and it does not record which ones.
Five sites out of sixty came up clean
Sixty sites carried the banner and 55 had early contact, so five did not. On those five, nothing third-party was reached before the point at which a visitor could have answered.
Five in sixty is a small number in absolute terms, and it is the only figure in this file that separates one consent platform from another in the direction people expect it to. Everything else about these 60 sites — how many companies they reach, how fast, how many arrive late — sits in the same band as the rest of the index.
The median site: five companies, 29 requests, 584 ms
The median site running Usercentrics contacted 5 separate companies over 29 requests, with 1 of those companies classified as tracking against the vendor catalogue. Median time to first third-party contact was 584 ms; the fastest recorded anywhere in this group was 115 ms.
Those medians rank eighth, seventh and sixth of nine respectively — the light end of a group of nine that does not vary much. The figure worth pausing on is a different one: the median number of companies that appeared after the consent window closed is 0. On a typical site here, the tally the browser had built by the end of the window was the tally it finished with.
Two shapes in the named examples
On most of the twelve example sites, every company contacted arrived inside the window. 3lift.com reached 9 companies and all 9 were inside it, first contact at 317 ms. cpanel.net: 6 and 6. wpguardian.com: 7 and 7, first contact at 579 ms; its sibling wpguardian.io the same 7 and 7, but not until 1,521 ms. mdpi.com reached 4 and 4, iso.org 3 and 3 at 472 ms, xing.com 3 and 3, sedo.com 2 and 2, and deepl.com a single company inside the window at 1,316 ms.
Two sites split. stackadapt.com contacted 9 companies with 5 of them inside the window, first contact at 1,351 ms, and jimdo.com 6 with 5. Usercentrics' own site, usercentrics.eu, contacted 2 companies, both inside the window, first contact at 820 ms.
One banner, and only one
All 60 sites in this group registered exactly one consent tool: Usercentrics. No second banner was seen alongside it on any of them.
That is worth stating because it is not the norm. Sites can and do carry more than one consent interface — a vendor banner plus an advertising framework, or two products left over from a migration — and where that happens the per-tool counts in this index overlap. Here they do not. When the crawl loaded these 60 pages, one piece of consent software was in charge of the question on each of them.
| Site | Companies | Before consent | First contact |
|---|---|---|---|
| cpanel.net | 6 | 6 | 1470 ms |
| 3lift.com | 9 | 9 | 317 ms |
| mdpi.com | 4 | 4 | 632 ms |
| stackadapt.com | 9 | 5 | 1351 ms |
| deepl.com | 1 | 1 | 1316 ms |
| iso.org | 3 | 3 | 472 ms |
| wpguardian.com | 7 | 7 | 579 ms |
| wpguardian.io | 7 | 7 | 1521 ms |
| sedo.com | 2 | 2 | 497 ms |
| xing.com | 3 | 3 | 468 ms |
| jimdo.com | 6 | 5 | 652 ms |
| usercentrics.eu | 2 | 2 | 820 ms |
| Tool | Sites |
|---|---|
| Usercentrics | 60 |
Questions
What is Usercentrics?
A consent management platform: hosted software that renders the cookie banner, records the visitor's choice, and signals that choice to the other scripts on the page. It is bought by the site, not by the visitor, and this index treats it as a detected banner rather than as a tracker.
Did companies fire before consent on Usercentrics sites?
On 55 of the 60, a company was contacted before the banner could have been answered. The measurement is per site: it counts how many companies arrived in that window, not which ones, so it cannot say which vendor on a given page was early.
Was the Usercentrics banner itself slow?
This corpus does not measure that. It does not record whether the banner's own network requests fall inside the pre-consent window, so no claim about the banner being outrun on these sites can be supported here in either direction.
How does 91.7% compare with the other consent tools?
It is the lowest early-contact share of the nine consent tools this index identifies, ranking ninth of nine. The median number of companies contacted in the window, 4, also ranks ninth of nine.
How many sites is the Usercentrics figure based on?
Sixty sites, out of 5,294 measured in total, each loaded once from a single location with nothing clicked. Sixty is enough to describe this group and too few to generalise to every Usercentrics deployment in the world.