Who each option is best for, and where either supplier is deliberately narrower.
Vendor comparison
Secure Privacy vs Osano: capability comparison
A side-by-side comparison of Secure Privacy and Osano across RoPA, DPIA, vendor risk, AI governance and evidence workflows. Acompli is shown as a third reference column.
Secure PrivacyOsanoComparison
Which public claims, review signals, caveats and capability rows are evidenced.
How much work it takes to implement, maintain and export the privacy record.
The questions a privacy team should ask before switching or shortlisting.
On this page
Key takeaways
- Secure Privacy and Osano are compared here on public-documentation capability coverage: Secure Privacy is publicly documented for 16 of 20 tracked capabilities, Osano for 17.
- The clearest difference: Osano adds Spreadsheet import, which Secure Privacy doesn't publicly document.
- Secure Privacy's public lane is Cookie consent, consent management, website privacy compliance, privacy governance, DSAR, vendor management and DPIA support; Osano's public lane is All-in-one privacy management, cookie consent, consent preferences, subject rights, data mapping, vendor privacy and assessments.
- Coverage marks reflect what each vendor publicly documents. Confirm live scope, pricing and export formats with each vendor before deciding.
01Short answer
Secure Privacy vs Osano
Secure Privacy is positioned as: Cookie consent, consent management, website privacy compliance, privacy governance, DSAR, vendor management and DPIA support. Osano is positioned as: All-in-one privacy management, cookie consent, consent preferences, subject rights, data mapping, vendor privacy and assessments. Secure Privacy and Osano overlap on most tracked capabilities, so buyers usually decide on depth, operating model and how defensibly each exports rather than on a feature checklist.
Osano has broader public-documentation coverage in this comparison (17 of 20 tracked rows, compared with 16 for Secure Privacy). Capability coverage below reflects what each vendor publicly documents; Acompli is shown as a third reference column.
02At a glance
Secure Privacy vs Osano at a glance
| Decision question | Secure Privacy | Osano | Acompli |
|---|---|---|---|
| Best fit | Marketing, legal and privacy teams that need cookie consent, consent logging, website privacy compliance and privacy governance support across many laws | Privacy teams that need an all-in-one data privacy platform with consent, subject rights, data mapping, vendor privacy, assessments and privacy templates | Privacy teams that need evidence-linked GDPR and AI-governance records with human approval, audit trail and regulator-ready exports |
| Operating model | Cookie consent and privacy compliance platform with consent solution, cookie scanner, privacy governance, DSAR, vendor management, DPIA and public plan tiers | Unified privacy management platform spanning cookie consent, consent and preferences, subject rights, data mapping, vendor privacy, assessments and TrustHub | Connected privacy operations platform for RoPA, DPIA, DSAR, risk, vendors, data mapping, AI governance and code-scan evidence |
| When to choose it | Choose Secure Privacy when consent banners, cookie scanning, consent logging, website compliance and low-cost public pricing are the priority | Choose Osano when cookie consent, preferences, subject rights and vendor privacy scoring are central to the programme | Choose Acompli when governance records, source evidence, Article 30 continuity and human approval are the priority |
- Best for: Marketing, legal and privacy teams that need a CMP, cookie scanning, consent records, privacy policies and broader governance in a public-pricing package.
- Deployment: Website/app consent platform with cookie scanner, consent collection, privacy governance modules and public pricing tiers.
- Best for: Privacy, legal and marketing teams that need consent operations plus a broad privacy programme platform across many global privacy laws.
- Deployment: SaaS privacy platform with website consent deployment, privacy programme modules and product documentation for implementation.
05Official source signals
What Secure Privacy and Osano emphasise publicly
This section uses each vendor's own public positioning as the starting point. It is included so customers can see why the two companies may appear in the same shortlist while still solving different problems.
The capability table remains conservative: "Y" means a capability was publicly documented, while "N" means it was not publicly confirmed in the reviewed material.
Secure Privacy official website
Open the official Secure Privacy source used to ground this profile.
ExploreOsano official product pages
Open the official Osano source used to ground this profile.
Explore| Signal | Secure Privacy | Osano |
|---|---|---|
| Public positioning | Secure Privacy positions itself around website privacy compliance, consent management and privacy request workflows. | Osano positions itself as a data privacy platform with consent, privacy rights, assessments and vendor-risk workflows. |
| Main public signals | Official pages emphasise cookie consent, website scanning, consent management and privacy policy support.; The strongest official lane is web privacy compliance and consent operations.; Secure Privacy should be compared where cookie, tracker and website-consent scope is central to the buying case. | Official product positioning centres on consent management, subject rights, vendor privacy risk and privacy assessments.; Osano is strongest where consent and preference operations sit beside broader privacy programme management.; For Article 30 comparison, buyers should verify how Osano's assessment and data-mapping outputs become regulator-ready RoPA evidence. |
| Best-fit buyer | Marketing, legal and privacy teams that need a CMP, cookie scanning, consent records, privacy policies and broader governance in a public-pricing package | Privacy, legal and marketing teams that need consent operations plus a broad privacy programme platform across many global privacy laws |
| Buyer verification | Ask Secure Privacy to demonstrate the workflows behind the modules that matter to your team, with export evidence and plan scope. | Ask Osano to demonstrate the workflows behind the modules that matter to your team, with export evidence and plan scope. |
06Sourced 2025-2026 signals
What's new at Secure Privacy (2025-2026, sourced)
These sourced updates were researched on 2026-07-05 and are listed separately from the live comparison table so existing profile claims remain unchanged.
Secure Privacy is retiring its original platform: v1 reaches end-of-support in Q2 2026 (no further security patches or new compliance-signal support such as Google Consent Mode v2 enforcement updates), with existing customers migrated free of charge to a v2 platform that adds unified web/mobile/TV-app consent from one account, a governance portal with DSAR workflows, cryptographic audit logs, and 19+ platform connectors. This is a vendor-stated roadmap/support-lifecycle change, not independently verified.
G2 lists Secure Privacy at 4.9/5 across 115 reviews (as of 2026) — an independent review data point separate from the Capterra figure (5.0/5, 82 reviews, independently re-confirmed as still current) already cited on the comparison page.
Direct verification (July 2026) confirms the Free $0 / Small $15 / Business $59 / Advanced $249 per-domain-per-month tiers on the comparison page are still accurate, but Secure Privacy now also lists a fifth 'Enterprise' tier above Advanced (custom pricing, unlimited consents, dedicated success manager, custom data-center location choice) plus a 30-day free trial requiring no credit card on paid tiers and an annual-billing 'two months free' discount — none of which appear on the comparison page.
Secure Privacy's Vendors Module (published October 2025, last updated April 2026) automatically categorizes third-party vendors into high/medium/low risk tiers and tracks certification expiry (e.g., SOC 2, ISO 27001) alongside data-processing-agreement tracking — a level of vendor-risk detail beyond the simple 'Vendor risk: Y' entry in the comparison page's capability table.
07Sourced 2025-2026 signals
What's new at Osano (2025-2026, sourced)
These sourced updates were researched on 2026-07-05 and are listed separately from the live comparison table so existing profile claims remain unchanged.
Osano announced a leadership transition on 14 July 2025: Bobby Jaffari (previously the executive who led Freshworks' North American launch and scale-up to a $10B valuation and IPO) became CEO, while co-founder Arlo Gilbert moved into a newly created Chief Innovation Officer role rather than leaving the company.
Osano publishes a dedicated page of structured facts written explicitly for AI assistants/LLMs (osano.com/ai-information), instructing them how to describe the company, its differentiators (e.g. the fines guarantee, B Corp status), certifications and usage stats -- an overt, competing example of AI-answer-shaping content in the same space Acompli is building for.
Osano markets a 'No Fines, No Penalties' guarantee -- a vendor pledge, not an independent audit or certification -- to cover up to $500,000 in regulatory fines or penalties caused by a documented platform failure. It is restricted to paying customers on Osano's higher-tier plans (named 'Start, Trust, or Scale' on the guarantee's terms page), requires full documented implementation with no unapproved configuration changes, and obligates the customer to notify Osano within 24 hours of any regulator contact.
Osano, Inc. (a Public Benefit Corporation) is listed on B Lab's public registry as a Certified B Corporation with a stated B Impact score of 89.8; Osano describes itself as the first data privacy platform to hold this status. This is a corporate-responsibility certification, independently verifiable via B Lab, distinct from the SOC 2 status already recorded in the profile.
Osano is a Google Certified Consent Management Platform partner supporting Google Consent Mode v2, and Google's own Analytics support documentation lists Osano as a setup option for obtaining Consent Mode signals -- relevant to EEA/UK publishers using Google AdSense, Ad Manager or AdMob, which require a Google-certified CMP. This is independently corroborated by Google, not only by Osano's own marketing.
Osano acquired enterprise privacy-program vendor WireWheel, with the deal completing 5 December 2023 (undisclosed amount). Both companies said the acquisition added enterprise-grade privacy-assessment, data-mapping and reporting capability aimed at larger enterprise buyers. This predates the 2025-2026 window but is not reflected anywhere in the current profile and provides context for the depth of Osano's Assessments and Data Mapping modules.
08Overlap and gaps
Secure Privacy vs Osano: what the public data actually shows
Feature count is only a starting point. A customer should separate shared coverage from unique public signals, then test whether the vendor can run the required workflow end to end.
| Decision point | Public signal | Buyer interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Shared evidenced coverage | DPIA/PIA assessments; RoPA / Article 30; DSAR / privacy rights; Data mapping; Vendor risk; Privacy risk; AI governance; plus 9 more | If your requirement sits here, compare workflow depth, implementation effort, evidence quality and price. |
| Only Secure Privacy publicly confirmed | Secure Privacy has no unique tracked public capability against Osano in this dataset. | Keep Secure Privacy on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask Osano whether the same capability exists in current product scope. |
| Only Osano publicly confirmed | Spreadsheet import | Keep Osano on the shortlist for these requirements, but ask Secure Privacy whether the same capability exists in current product scope. |
| Acompli reference column | Retention management | Use this as a third reference point where a narrower evidence-first privacy workflow may be preferable to a broader platform. |
09Capability comparison
Secure Privacy vs Osano: capability by capability
Each row shows Secure Privacy and Osano marked Y or N based on public documentation, with Acompli shown in the final column for reference.
| Capability | Secure Privacy | Osano | Acompli |
|---|---|---|---|
| DPIA/PIA assessments | Y | Y | Y |
| RoPA / Article 30 | Y | Y | Y |
| DSAR / privacy rights | Y | Y | N |
| Data mapping | Y | Y | Y |
| Vendor risk | Y | Y | Y |
| Privacy risk | Y | Y | Y |
| AI governance | Y | Y | Y |
| Consent management | Y | Y | N |
| Cookie/tracker scanning | Y | Y | N |
| Breach/incident management | N | N | N |
| Retention management | N | N | Y |
| Policy/notice management | Y | Y | N |
| Training module | N | N | N |
| Approval workflows | Y | Y | Y |
| Audit trail | Y | Y | Y |
| Role-based access control | Y | Y | Y |
| Multi-entity support | Y | Y | Y |
| Spreadsheet import | N | Y | Y |
| PDF/CSV/Excel export | Y | Y | Y |
| Public pricing | Y | Y | N |
10Where each is stronger
Secure Privacy vs Osano: the differences that matter
Most rows are shared between Secure Privacy and Osano; what separates them is the handful of capabilities only one evidences and the specialist focus each is built around.
- Only Osano (not Secure Privacy) is evidenced for: Spreadsheet import.
- Secure Privacy: Cookie banners, scanner, automatic blocking, consent logging, cross-domain consent and Google/Meta consent mode support.
- Secure Privacy: Transparent self-serve pricing with a free tier and low monthly plans for cookie and consent compliance.
- Osano: Cookie Consent and Unified Consent & Preference Hub.
- Osano: Vendor Privacy Risk Management, including vendor privacy scoring and monitoring language.
11Customer due diligence
Questions customers should ask before choosing Secure Privacy or Osano
A useful comparison should move beyond a product page checklist. Customers should ask each supplier to prove the same live workflow, with the same assumptions, so the difference between platform breadth and usable evidence becomes visible.
Run one real workflow
Ask Secure Privacy and Osano to process the same example: new activity, assessment, RoPA update, supplier evidence, risk record, review and export.
Check evidence provenance
Confirm whether each important field in Secure Privacy and Osano has a source, owner, review date and change history, not just a completed form.
Validate exports
Ask both vendors for a regulator-readable export for one legal entity, including controller and processor records where relevant.
Confirm commercial scope
Verify which modules, integrations, service hours, data residency options and support commitments are included in the quoted Secure Privacy or Osano package.
12Shortlisting notes
Choosing between Secure Privacy and Osano
Weigh Secure Privacy and Osano on the workflow you must run end to end - RoPA, DPIA, vendor and risk records - and on how defensibly each one exports what it holds.
- Shortlist Secure Privacy when consent banners, cookie scanning, consent logging, website compliance and low-cost public pricing are the priority.
- Shortlist Osano when cookie consent, preferences, subject rights and vendor privacy scoring are central to the programme.
- Put the same case to Secure Privacy and Osano: take one processing activity through its assessment, the RoPA update, supplier evidence, the privacy risk and a defensible export, and watch where each needs manual work.
13Ireland & UK
Secure Privacy vs Osano: Article 30 records for Irish and UK teams
Both Secure Privacy and Osano are weighed by Irish and UK privacy teams against the same fixed obligation: a record of processing activities under GDPR Article 30 - a controller record under Article 30(1) and a separate processor record under Article 30(2). In Ireland the Data Protection Commission (DPC) publishes Article 30 guidance; in the UK the ICO sets out what UK GDPR requires.
Whichever of Secure Privacy or Osano an Irish or UK team weighs, the questions are the same: how deep is the Article 30 record, is EU and UK GDPR distinguished on one register, and can each legal entity produce a self-contained export its own supervisory authority can read?
| Article 30 check | Secure Privacy | Osano | Why customers care |
|---|---|---|---|
| Controller record | Ask Secure Privacy to show the Article 30(1) controller fields for one processing activity, including purposes, categories, recipients, transfers, retention and security measures. | Ask Osano to show the Article 30(1) controller fields for one processing activity, including purposes, categories, recipients, transfers, retention and security measures. | A controller record must stand on its own when a regulator or auditor asks for it. |
| Processor record | Ask Secure Privacy to show Article 30(2) processor records separately from controller records, scoped to the controller on whose behalf processing is carried out. | Ask Osano to show Article 30(2) processor records separately from controller records, scoped to the controller on whose behalf processing is carried out. | Many tools capture controller records more clearly than processor records; customers should verify both. |
| Ireland and UK fit | Ask Secure Privacy how EU GDPR and UK GDPR records are separated or tagged for Irish and UK entities. | Ask Osano how EU GDPR and UK GDPR records are separated or tagged for Irish and UK entities. | Irish DPC and UK ICO expectations are close, but entity scope, local law references and export format still matter. |
| Standalone export | Ask Secure Privacy for a complete export that a legal entity could provide without giving the regulator product access. | Ask Osano for a complete export that a legal entity could provide without giving the regulator product access. | A defensible record should be readable outside the platform, with enough context to explain the processing activity. |
- Article 30(1) and 30(2) - does each of Secure Privacy and Osano model controller and processor records separately, scoped by legal entity?
- EU and UK GDPR - can Secure Privacy or Osano hold both on one register, mapped to what the DPC and ICO expect?
- Export - does Secure Privacy or Osano let each legal entity produce a stand-alone record its supervisory authority can read without platform access?
Comparison FAQ
Secure Privacy vs Osano questions answered
Acompli answers
Acompli: the focused alternative to both
Acompli overlap
Related Acompli workflows
Secure Privacy vs Acompli
Compare Secure Privacy directly with Acompli across RoPA, DPIA, risk and vendor records.
Open moduleOsano vs Acompli
Compare Osano directly with Acompli across RoPA, DPIA, risk and vendor records.
Open moduleRoPA management
Maintain Article 30 records that stay linked to approved assessments, systems, suppliers and transfers.
Open moduleAssessments
Run DPIAs, LIAs, TIAs, processor reviews and AI Act assessments with templates, AI support and human approval.
Open moduleCompare Secure Privacy and Osano against a real workflow.
Bring one RoPA, DPIA, vendor, risk or AI-governance requirement and map which parts Secure Privacy covers, which Osano covers, and where each option fits.
Acompli architecture
One governed foundation. Five connected modules.
Imported systems, suppliers, policies, DPIAs and RoPA spreadsheets become the shared evidence model for assessments, risk, records, third-party oversight and data mapping.
- OnboardingImport DPIAs, RoPA spreadsheets, suppliers, systems, policies and documents.
- AssessmentsRun DPIAs, LIAs, TIAs, processor reviews and AI Act assessments with human approval.
- RiskExtract candidate risks from approved evidence and assign treatment plans.
- RoPAMaintain Article 30 records linked to assessments, systems, suppliers and transfers.
- Third-PartyRecord suppliers once, then reference them across assessments, RoPA, risk and maps.
- Data MappingBuild a living view of systems, suppliers, locations, categories and transfers.
Point tools create records. Acompli connects them.