Contentful, measured on 74 sites
Contentful is a headless content management system. Editors write and structure content inside Contentful, and the website fetches the finished result over an API and renders it in its own front end. Because that content arrives from a Contentful host rather than from the site's own servers, the CMS turns up in a network trace even though no visitor ever sees its name. It was found on 74 of the 5,294 sites in this index, and those sites are among the quietest profiled here: a median of 6 companies contacted, which ranks 80th of the 88 companies in this set.
Six companies, and nothing measurable after the window
Six companies on the median page puts this group in the bottom ten of the 88 companies profiled here. The supporting numbers agree: a median of 1 tracker-classified company, 72nd of 88, and a median of 5 companies counted before the banner could be answered, 57th of 88 and level with 22 others. The most striking figure is the one for what comes afterwards. The median count of companies arriving once the consent window has closed is 0. On a typical Contentful site, whatever outside contact there is has already happened. Median requests per page is 44, 45th of 88, so these are not unusually small pages; they are pages whose weight is mostly their own.
Quiet but front-loaded: 72 of 74 sites
At least one company was contacted before the banner could be answered on 72 of the 74 sites. That share, 97.3%, ranks 14th of the 88 companies here, near the top, which is an odd place for a group with such low counts to sit. The two facts belong together: little happens on these pages, and almost all of it happens early. Eight of the twelve examples show every company arriving in that window, including openai.com at 3 of 3, ring.com 3 of 3, hotjar.com 18 of 18, life360.com 7 of 7, statuspage.io 5 of 5, finn.no 6 of 6, psu.edu 5 of 5 and auth0.com 5 of 5. The exceptions are autodesk.com at 4 of 10, calendly.com 5 of 8, xerox.com 3 of 9 and elsevier.com 3 of 6, and the last two were also the slowest to reach outside at 1,697 ms and 1,739 ms.
OneTrust on 31 of the 49 sites with a banner
A recognised consent tool was present on 49 of the 74 sites, two in every three. OneTrust was seen on 31, Osano on 8, IAB TCF conformant tools on 5, Cookiebot on 3 and Usercentrics on 2, counted alongside each other rather than as a division of the 49. The same two names reappear in the co-presence data from a different angle: OneTrust was contacted as a company on 28 of the 74 sites and Osano on 8. Median first contact for the group is 591 ms, 65th of 88, and the fastest single first contact recorded anywhere in it was 140 ms.
A product-site and documentation population
The examples read as a list of things a marketing team publishes rather than a list of media properties: openai.com at global rank 131, autodesk.com, calendly.com, hotjar.com, ring.com, life360.com, xerox.com, statuspage.io, auth0.com, plus finn.no, a Norwegian classifieds site, psu.edu, a university, and elsevier.com, an academic publisher. That is what a headless CMS is usually bought for, a site with a lot of structured pages and a front end the company controls. hotjar.com is the outlier of the twelve at 18 companies, against openai.com and ring.com at 3.
No near-universal companion
Google is present on 39 of the 74 sites, 52.7%, which leaves 35 sites where it was not contacted at all. OneTrust follows on 28, then Sentry and Google Tag Manager on 13 each, Cloudflare Analytics and jsDelivr on 9, Osano on 8, Amazon CloudFront and contentful.com on 7, and HubSpot on 6. Nothing on that list is near-universal, which is the same story the median company count tells from the other end. MurmStack runs this measurement against a single URL and returns the same fields for it.
| Site | Companies | Before consent | First contact |
|---|---|---|---|
| openai.com | 3 | 3 | 532 ms |
| autodesk.com | 10 | 4 | 901 ms |
| calendly.com | 8 | 5 | 420 ms |
| hotjar.com | 18 | 18 | 757 ms |
| ring.com | 3 | 3 | 591 ms |
| life360.com | 7 | 7 | 815 ms |
| xerox.com | 9 | 3 | 1697 ms |
| statuspage.io | 5 | 5 | 798 ms |
| finn.no | 6 | 6 | 521 ms |
| psu.edu | 5 | 5 | 962 ms |
| elsevier.com | 6 | 3 | 1739 ms |
| auth0.com | 5 | 5 | 243 ms |
| Tool | Sites |
|---|---|
| OneTrust | 31 |
| Osano | 8 |
| IAB TCF consent tool | 5 |
| Cookiebot | 3 |
| Usercentrics | 2 |
Seen on the same pages
Companies most often contacted by the same sites. Co-presence only — the crawl records what arrived, not who called whom.
- GoogleTogether on 39 of these sites
- OneTrustTogether on 28 of these sites
- SentryTogether on 13 of these sites
- Google Tag ManagerTogether on 13 of these sites
- Cloudflare AnalyticsTogether on 9 of these sites
- jsDelivrTogether on 9 of these sites
- OsanoTogether on 8 of these sites
- Amazon CloudFrontTogether on 7 of these sites
Questions
What is a headless CMS?
A content system with no front end of its own. Editors work in it, and the website reads the content over an API and decides how to display it. The site and the CMS are separate systems, which is why the CMS appears as a third-party host in a network trace.
Why does the CMS show up in a privacy scan?
Because the browser makes a request to a host the site does not own in order to fetch the page's content. This index records that the request happened on 74 of 5,294 measured sites; it makes no claim about what the request carries.
Are Contentful sites lighter than average?
On the count measures, yes. Their median of 6 companies ranks 80th of the 88 companies profiled here, and their median of 5 companies before the banner could be answered ranks 57th, level with 22 others. On requests they sit mid-table at 44, 45th of 88.
How many carried a consent banner?
49 of the 74, leaving 25 where the crawl recognised none. OneTrust was the tool seen most often, on 31 sites, with Osano next on 8.