Osano: 58 sites out of 58 with contact inside the window
Osano is a consent management platform. Sites install it to show the cookie banner, record what the visitor chose and make that choice available to the rest of the page. This index found it on 58 of the 5,294 sites measured, and on every single one of them a company was reached inside the opening window — the stretch that ends where a visitor could first have read the banner and chosen. Of the 88 companies broken out in this index, no other has a higher share on that measure — 100%, rank 1 of 88. What that means, and more importantly what it does not mean, takes some care to state.
What a 100% early-contact share does and does not say
On all 58 sites, some company was reached inside the opening window. That is the highest share of any of the 88 companies in this index and it is a fact about the sites, not a verdict on the banner.
This corpus records, per site, how many companies were contacted before the window closed. It does not record which companies they were. It also does not record whether a consent tool's own requests fall inside or outside that window — the banner has to load from somewhere too. So the data cannot establish that Osano was outrun, or beaten, or bypassed. It establishes that on every site in this group something was contacted early, and that the median number of such companies was 6.
The honest reading is about the pages rather than the platform: a site that installs a consent tool still runs a CDN, a font host and an analytics tag, and those reach out while the page is still assembling itself.
Light pages, and nothing arriving late
The median site here contacted 6 companies over 29 requests, with 1 classified as tracking. Against the 88 companies in this index those rank 81st, 75th and 73rd respectively, where rank 1 is the highest — the low end of the corpus on every load measure.
The median number of companies first contacted after the consent window closed is 0, counted per site rather than derived from the other medians. Put beside the median of 6 companies contacted before it closed, that describes a page whose entire third-party footprint is established up front. There is no second wave here to be governed by an answer to the banner.
Median first contact landed at 657 ms, rank 47 of 88 with rank 1 the slowest — mid-table. The quickest single site reached out at 54 ms.
Its own banner on 57 of 58
Consent software was detected on 57 of the 58 sites, and on all 57 the tool seen was Osano — no other banner was detected anywhere in this group. Elsewhere in this index a single site can carry more than one banner at a time, which makes these counts sightings rather than shares; in this group there is nothing to overlap.
One site contacted Osano with no banner detected at all. Among the named example sites that is ieee.org, which reached 4 companies with all 4 inside the window at 286 ms. A banner served only to visitors in certain regions, or one rendered in a way this crawl did not catch, would both produce that result; the measurement cannot distinguish them.
Publishers, archives and consumer apps
disqus.com contacted 3 companies, all 3 inside the window, first contact at 115 ms — the quickest of the named group. id.me: 3, all inside, at 548 ms. newrelic.com: 5, all inside, at 238 ms. wiley.com: 5, all inside, at 1,092 ms. riotgames.com: 6, all 6 inside, at 763 ms. life360.com: 7, all inside, at 815 ms. slideshare.net: 7, all inside, at 899 ms. flickr.com: 8, all 8 inside, at 457 ms.
The heavier end is scribd.com with 12 companies, all 12 inside the window at 255 ms, and wyzecam.com with 12 of which 6 were inside, at 932 ms. ted.com reached 10 with 8 inside at 657 ms.
Ten of the twelve named sites had every company they contacted arrive inside the window. These are not pages with a large deferred load waiting on a consent signal; they are pages that do their fetching immediately and then stop.
What Osano travels with
Google was present on 36 of the 58 sites (62.1%), HubSpot on 12 (20.7%), Google Fonts / APIs on 8 (13.8%), jsDelivr on 8 (13.8%), Contentful on 8 (13.8%), Amazon CloudFront on 6 (10.3%), Cloudflare on 6 (10.3%), Cloudflare Analytics on 6 (10.3%), hsforms.com on 5 (8.6%) and website-files.com on 4 (6.9%).
A CRM, a headless CMS, two CDNs and a font host. There is not an ad exchange or a data platform in the list, which is consistent with pages contacting 6 companies at the median. How the consent window is defined and what it can support is set out at /consent-gap; MurmStack runs the same measurement on a page you have open.
| Site | Companies | Before consent | First contact |
|---|---|---|---|
| flickr.com | 8 | 8 | 457 ms |
| wiley.com | 5 | 5 | 1092 ms |
| scribd.com | 12 | 12 | 255 ms |
| slideshare.net | 7 | 7 | 899 ms |
| ieee.org | 4 | 4 | 286 ms |
| newrelic.com | 5 | 5 | 238 ms |
| ted.com | 10 | 8 | 657 ms |
| disqus.com | 3 | 3 | 115 ms |
| wyzecam.com | 12 | 6 | 932 ms |
| life360.com | 7 | 7 | 815 ms |
| riotgames.com | 6 | 6 | 763 ms |
| id.me | 3 | 3 | 548 ms |
| Tool | Sites |
|---|---|
| Osano | 57 |
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 36 of these sites
- HubSpotTogether on 12 of these sites
- Google Fonts / APIsTogether on 8 of these sites
- jsDelivrTogether on 8 of these sites
- ContentfulTogether on 8 of these sites
- Amazon CloudFrontTogether on 6 of these sites
- CloudflareTogether on 6 of these sites
- Cloudflare AnalyticsTogether on 6 of these sites
Questions
What does Osano do?
It is a consent management platform: it displays the cookie banner, stores the visitor's answer and makes it available to the site's other scripts. This index classifies it under consent management, and not as tracking.
Did something beat the Osano banner on these sites?
The corpus cannot answer that. It records how many companies were contacted before the window closed but not which ones, and it does not record whether the consent tool's own requests fall inside that window. All it establishes is that early contact happened on all 58 sites.
Is 100% unusual?
It is rank 1 of the 88 companies broken out in this index on that measure — no company here has a higher share. The group is small at 58 sites, which makes a clean sweep easier to achieve than it would be across hundreds.
Are these heavy pages?
No. Six companies at the median ranks 81st of 88 and 29 requests ranks 75th, where rank 1 is the highest in both cases. The median number of companies arriving after the window closed is 0.
How many sites is the Osano figure based on?
58 of the 5,294 sites measured, 1.1% of the corpus. Fifty-seven of the 58 carried a detected consent tool, and in every case it was Osano's own banner.