Axeptio and tarteaucitron are two French CMPs, but their geographical proximity does not mean they were designed with the same philosophy.
Both solutions can collect visitor choices and manage services subject to consent. However, their operation, business models and features reveal significant differences.
I develop tarteaucitron, so this comparison is obviously not written by a completely external observer. My goal is instead to explain the practical differences between the two solutions and identify the situations they are designed for.
Two French CMPs with different approaches
Axeptio is a SaaS CMP with a strong focus on user experience, visual customization, consent storage, cookie scanning and various measurement and advertising features.
tarteaucitron originally started as an open-source project. Its operation remains centered around a relatively simple idea: identify the third-party services used by a website and control their loading according to the visitor’s choice.
This historical difference explains much of the current product. tarteaucitron still exists as a free open-source solution, while the Pro version automates much of the work and adds an online configuration console.
The pricing models are very different
This is probably one of the easiest differences to understand.
Axeptio offers several plans whose limits depend notably on pageviews and the number of domains. Available features also vary according to the selected plan.
tarteaucitron Pro works differently: the licence covers unlimited websites and unlimited traffic. An agency can therefore use the same licence across multiple client websites without purchasing an additional licence for each domain.
For a single small website, the entry price of a per-domain solution may be attractive. For an agency, a group operating many websites or a network of public organizations, the calculation quickly changes.
I have long preferred a pricing model that does not directly penalize the number of websites. It is a product choice as much as a commercial one.
Axeptio provides consent storage
Axeptio includes a consent registry that stores information about collected consents.
tarteaucitron deliberately does not maintain an individual registry of visitors who accepted or rejected services. This is not an oversight: I prefer not to collect additional visitor information simply to operate the CMP.
This can be a genuine selection criterion. An organization that specifically wants an integrated consent registry will find this feature in Axeptio but not in tarteaucitron.
Conversely, when a website simply wants to condition third-party services on visitor choices without transmitting or storing additional individual history, tarteaucitron’s approach may be more appropriate.
TCF support is another important difference
Axeptio provides TCF support in some of its plans. tarteaucitron deliberately does not participate in the IAB Transparency & Consent Framework.
This difference is decisive for some publishers funded through programmatic advertising. If advertising partners require a CMP participating in the TCF, Axeptio can address that requirement while tarteaucitron is not designed for it.
For a brochure website, online store or company mainly controlling GA4, YouTube, Google Maps, Facebook and other identified services, the TCF is not automatically required.
I explain this distinction in detail in my article about the IAB TCF.
Both solutions support Google Consent Mode
The choice between Axeptio and tarteaucitron should not be based simply on Google Consent Mode v2 support. Both solutions support it.
With tarteaucitron, Consent Mode is available in both the open-source and Pro versions. The main difference lies in configuration simplicity and automation.
It is also important to remember that Consent Mode and service blocking are separate topics. I explain this mechanism in my Google Consent Mode v2 guide.
Scanning a website or detecting services in the browser
Axeptio provides a cookie scanner in several of its plans. The scanner crawls the website to identify cookies and technologies that are present.
tarteaucitron Pro takes a different approach with its automatic mode. JavaScript analyzes the page being visited and detects supported services so it can intervene before they load when the tarteaucitron marker is correctly positioned.
A scanner and real-time automatic detection do not solve exactly the same problem. A scanner mainly establishes an inventory. Browser detection acts when a service actually attempts to load.
Both mechanisms can be useful, but they should not be confused.
Banner customization
Axeptio has built a strong identity around the consent experience and provides various visual customization options.
tarteaucitron Pro also makes it easy to change text, colors and many options from its console. Custom CSS can be added and, for more specific requirements, the interface remains standard HTML, CSS and JavaScript.
There is no Shadow DOM artificially isolating the banner from the rest of the page, so customization can go much further when required.
This freedom should obviously not be used to create dark patterns. Accepting and rejecting should remain equally easy choices.
Open source on one side, SaaS on the other
Another significant difference is that tarteaucitron.js is available under the MIT licence. Its code can be downloaded, audited, self-hosted and used for free.
The Pro version uses the same foundation while adding features including automatic detection, online configuration and maintenance distributed through the CDN.
This option is particularly relevant to developers and organizations that want to inspect precisely how their CMP works or retain the ability to self-host it.
I discuss the implications in my article about the difference between open source and Pro.
When does Axeptio make sense?
Axeptio is particularly relevant when a project requires specific features provided by its SaaS platform: integrated consent storage, scanning, TCF, statistics or other advanced functions available across its plans.
For a publisher that depends on the TCF, the choice is even clearer because tarteaucitron does not attempt to cover that requirement.
When does tarteaucitron make sense?
tarteaucitron is more closely aligned with an approach centered on technical control of third-party services, with the option to start with an open-source solution or use Pro to automate that work.
Its unlimited websites and traffic model is also particularly relevant to agencies and organizations managing many domains.
Finally, the absence of TCF support or an individual consent registry is not a missing feature from my perspective: these are deliberate choices. They may suit one project and rule tarteaucitron out for another.
Two CMPs for different requirements
I therefore do not think the right question is which CMP is universally “better”.
If a project requires TCF, a consent registry or specific features provided by Axeptio, Axeptio may naturally be the right answer. If the priority is an open-source CMP, direct service control, an automated Pro version and a licence that does not depend on website count or traffic, tarteaucitron follows a different logic.
The most important thing is still to start with the actual website rather than a feature list. A CMP must first be able to actually control the services present on the website.
