Didomi and tarteaucitron are two French CMPs, but this is probably the comparison in this series where their positioning differs the most.
Didomi currently presents itself as a platform for complex environments and large organizations: multiple regulations, countries, websites, mobile applications, CTV, TCF, GPP and consent management at scale.
tarteaucitron has historically been much closer to developers, web agencies, SMBs and organizations that want to control third-party services across one or several websites without deploying a global privacy management infrastructure.
I develop tarteaucitron, so this comparison necessarily reflects my perspective. But in this particular case, it is not difficult to acknowledge that Didomi covers certain enterprise requirements that I simply do not intend to integrate into tarteaucitron.
Didomi clearly targets complex environments
Didomi’s positioning is explicit. Its CMP is designed to manage consent across multiple regions, domains, applications and devices.
The platform supports numerous international regulations and can adapt consent notices according to visitor location. It also supports several frameworks used by the advertising and privacy industries.
These capabilities make sense for an international company that needs to operate the same consent strategy across Europe, the United States and other regions.
That is not the everyday problem faced by most websites I encounter with tarteaucitron.
tarteaucitron starts with a simpler problem
tarteaucitron starts with a much more direct question: which third-party services are present on this page and which of them must wait for the visitor’s choice before operating?
Google Analytics, YouTube, Google Maps, Facebook, reCAPTCHA and other services can be controlled individually.
In the open-source version, these services are declared manually. In Pro, automatic detection can recognize many services already present on the website and block them when the tarteaucitron marker loads early enough.
I prefer to keep this logic relatively simple rather than trying to turn tarteaucitron into a global privacy management platform.
TCF immediately distinguishes the two CMPs
Didomi supports the IAB Transparency & Consent Framework. tarteaucitron deliberately does not participate in the TCF.
For a large publisher funded through programmatic advertising, this difference alone may be enough to choose Didomi. If advertising partners require a CMP participating in the framework, tarteaucitron simply does not fit that specification.
For an SMB, agency or organization using a few identified third-party services without depending on that advertising ecosystem, the TCF is not necessarily relevant.
I explain this distinction in my article about the IAB TCF.
Didomi goes beyond the Web
Another significant difference concerns supported environments. Didomi provides consent management for websites as well as mobile applications and connected TV.
The platform also highlights the ability to share choices across multiple domains or devices.
For an international group operating several websites, native applications and different connected products, a common platform can be a genuine architectural requirement.
tarteaucitron remains primarily focused on the Web. I prefer not to claim coverage of environments for which the project was not designed.
Two different approaches to multiple websites
Both solutions can be used in environments containing many websites, but they approach the problem differently.
Didomi provides a platform for managing complex configurations across multiple domains and sharing consent in certain architectures.
tarteaucitron Pro takes a much simpler approach: the licence allows the CMP to be used on unlimited websites with unlimited traffic.
For a web agency managing fifty independent client websites, this simplicity is often exactly what is required. There is no need to build a shared consent strategy between all clients: each has its own website and services, while the same licence can be used everywhere.
The commercial model also reflects the positioning
Didomi does not present its CMP as a simple standard subscription that can be added to a shopping cart. Its website directs organizations towards sales teams and highlights support, migration and specialist involvement.
This is consistent with an enterprise product. A large international company may require deployment assistance, a specific architecture and different rules across markets.
tarteaucitron Pro is deliberately much more self-service. An account is created, the marker is installed and configuration takes place directly through the console. For WordPress, the official plugin makes installation even simpler.
I do not require a sales process or deployment project before the CMP can be used. This model is better suited to SMBs, developers and agencies that want to move directly to implementation.
Google Consent Mode is not a decisive factor
Didomi supports Google Consent Mode v2 and provides several configuration options involving Google products and Google Tag Manager.
tarteaucitron also supports Consent Mode v2 in both its open-source and Pro versions.
Consent Mode support therefore does not really distinguish the two products. The difference lies more in the overall environment in which the feature is being used.
I explain its operation separately in my Google Consent Mode v2 guide.
Didomi stores consent proof
Didomi integrates consent proof storage into its platform. This is consistent with its broader consent and privacy management positioning.
tarteaucitron does not maintain an individual registry of every visitor who accepted or rejected services.
This is deliberate. I do not want to centralize information about visitors across all websites using tarteaucitron simply to provide an individual history of their choices.
This does not mean that proving consent is irrelevant. The issue is simply more nuanced than “store every click in a database”.
Open source is another important difference
tarteaucitron.js is available under the MIT licence. Its code can be downloaded, inspected, modified and self-hosted.
This matters to some developers and organizations. In particular, it makes it possible to understand precisely how the mechanism responsible for blocking third-party services operates.
Pro adds automation, online configuration and CDN-based maintenance, while the open-source project remains independently usable.
Didomi follows a SaaS platform model. Neither model is inherently better: they address different requirements.
When Didomi seems more appropriate
I would consider Didomi first for a large organization managing multiple regulations, countries, digital environments and requirements involving TCF or programmatic advertising.
The need for dedicated support, shared consent across different environments or an architecture covering Web, applications and CTV also aligns much more closely with Didomi’s positioning.
In these situations, comparing only licence prices would not make much sense. The requirement itself is broader.
When tarteaucitron seems more appropriate
For an SMB, web agency, public organization or developer mainly looking to control third-party services on websites, tarteaucitron deliberately remains simpler.
The open-source version can handle everything manually. Pro automates detection and simplifies maintenance. A single licence can cover all websites without traffic quotas.
There is no need to build an enterprise project around the CMP before starting to use it.
Two products that are not really trying to do the same thing
Didomi and tarteaucitron both fall under the CMP category, but their scope demonstrates the limits of that label.
Didomi is a consent platform designed for organizations that may have complex international and multi-environment requirements. tarteaucitron remains a tool much more directly focused on controlling third-party services on the Web.
For a complex enterprise project, that simplicity can become a limitation. For an agency or SMB, it may instead be exactly what is required.
The right choice therefore starts less with a feature list than with a simple question: what problem actually needs to be solved?
