Angular
Angular is a front-end framework, maintained by Google, that developers use to build web applications: the kind of page that behaves like a piece of software rather than a document. If you have seen the name in a job listing, a stack list or a browser extension's readout, this is what it is. The framework leaves a recognisable signature in the delivered page, which is how the crawl detected it on 90 of the 5,294 sites measured here, 1.7 percent, placing it eleventh of the thirteen technologies covered by site count.
Joint-last of thirteen on companies and on requests
Angular sites finished joint-last on two of the three weight measures. Median companies contacted: 4 — nothing among the thirteen is lower, and Nuxt reports the same 4. Median third-party requests: 25 — again nothing lower, and again level with Nuxt. Median trackers: 1, the commonest figure in the table, shared with eight other technologies, and none of the thirteen reports fewer. Median companies contacted before the banner window closed: 3 — nothing among the thirteen is lower, and Nuxt and Vue report the same 3. An Angular page in this sample sits at the bottom of the thirteen on companies and on requests, sharing that position with Nuxt rather than holding it alone. At the median, no company is contacted after the window closes at all.
And the fewest banners
27 of the 90 Angular sites carried a recognisable consent tool, under a third of the set. OneTrust was seen on 14 of them, the IAB TCF signal on 10, Cookiebot on 2 and Iubenda on 1, counted as sightings rather than slices since one site can run more than one layer. The thin coverage fits the rest of the profile rather than contradicting it. A large share of what gets built in Angular is an application behind a login, an internal console or a product dashboard, and those pages tend to carry neither an advertising stack nor the banner that an advertising stack makes necessary.
Nine sites where nothing arrived early
81 of the 90 sites had at least one company contacted before the banner window closed, which is 90.0 percent and ninth of thirteen. The nine that did not are the interesting residue: pages where the first outside request, if there was one, came late enough to fall outside the window entirely. examinationservices.nic.in is one shape of that, with a single company, none of it early, and first contact at 4,747 milliseconds. Median first contact across the whole group was 677 milliseconds, seventh of thirteen. The earliest recorded anywhere in the set was 125 milliseconds, and labs.google sits at exactly that figure with one company.
The two ends of the sample
litnet.com registered 13 companies with 12 of them inside the window; testbook.com registered 11, all inside; mts.ru registered 10 with 4 inside and first contact at 1,371 milliseconds. Against those, dropcatch.com and labs.google registered 1 apiece. In between sit deloitte.com, buydomains.com, battle.net and orcid.org, all four running OneTrust and all between 5 and 6 companies, with orcid.org starting earliest of that group at 220 milliseconds and deloitte.com latest at 1,235. weforum.org ran Cookiebot with 6 companies, all inside the window, and wetteronline.de carried the TCF signal with 4.
What the framework does and does not explain
Angular renders interfaces. It does not fetch analytics, it does not place advertising, and nothing inside it makes a page lighter. The correlation in these 90 rows runs the other way round: the kind of site that gets built as a single-page application is often not the kind of site funded by third-party advertising, and that shows up as low medians. Read the numbers as a description of who chose the framework rather than as an effect of choosing it. If you want the same reading for a specific page, including which technologies it uses, that is what the crawl behind this index does, and the method is written up at /consent-gap.
| Site | Companies | Before consent | First contact |
|---|---|---|---|
| mts.ru | 10 | 4 | 1371 ms |
| dropcatch.com | 1 | 1 | 328 ms |
| deloitte.com | 6 | 4 | 1235 ms |
| weforum.org | 6 | 6 | 433 ms |
| litnet.com | 13 | 12 | 551 ms |
| labs.google | 1 | 1 | 125 ms |
| buydomains.com | 6 | 5 | 1187 ms |
| testbook.com | 11 | 11 | 248 ms |
| examinationservices.nic.in | 1 | 0 | 4747 ms |
| wetteronline.de | 4 | 4 | 314 ms |
| battle.net | 6 | 6 | 749 ms |
| orcid.org | 5 | 5 | 220 ms |
| Tool | Sites |
|---|---|
| OneTrust | 14 |
| IAB TCF consent tool | 10 |
| Cookiebot | 2 |
| Iubenda | 1 |
Questions
What is Angular actually used for?
It is a framework for building web applications in the browser, where the page loads once and then updates itself in place instead of fetching a new document for every action. Product dashboards, admin consoles, booking flows and internal tools are typical uses, which is reflected in the 90 sites detected here.
Does building with Angular reduce third-party requests?
Nothing in the framework does that. The median of 25 third-party requests is a property of the sites in this sample, not of the technology. A site can be built in Angular and still load an advertising stack; none of the measurements here would prevent it.
Why do so few Angular sites show a consent banner?
27 of the 90 carried one. The most plausible reading is composition: applications behind a login and internal tools have less reason to run the third-party services that make a banner necessary. That is an interpretation of the site list, not something the measurement establishes.
What does the 90 percent early contact figure mean?
81 of the 90 sites contacted at least one outside company before the point at which a consent banner could have been answered. It is a count per site, not per company, so it says how many sites were affected rather than which services were involved.