Best alternatives to Enzuzo

If you're looking past Enzuzo, you're probably hitting one of a few specific walls. Maybe the 5,000-visitor free tier expired faster than expected and you're not ready to commit to $7/mo for what is still a fairly thin feature set. Maybe you built a more complex product and you're not confident the questionnaire actually caught everything running on your site. Or maybe you shipped an iOS app and realized Enzuzo has no path to an App Store privacy nutrition label.

Enzuzo is genuinely good at what it advertises: cookie consent management and DSAR workflow automation for small and mid-sized businesses, at a price that doesn't require a procurement conversation. That combination is rare and legitimately useful. The frustration isn't usually that Enzuzo is bad; it's that it has a specific shape, and your needs have grown outside it.

The alternatives landscape breaks into a few categories: enterprise platforms (overkill and expensive), cookie-banner-only tools (narrower than Enzuzo), document-generation tools like Pageguard (no consent banner, but scan-based accuracy), and general legal template sites (cheap, generic, mostly useless for anything technical). What you need depends heavily on whether you still need a consent banner, whether you need DSAR tooling, and whether document accuracy matters more than document convenience.

How documents get generated: questionnaire vs. live scan

Enzuzo asks you questions and builds a policy from your answers. That works fine if you know exactly what's running on your site and remember to update your answers when your stack changes. It breaks down for anyone running PostHog, Intercom, a third-party payment processor, and a handful of analytics scripts they half-remember adding two sprints ago. Pageguard scans your live site and detects 437+ technology signatures automatically, then generates documents grounded in what it actually finds. The practical difference: a policy Enzuzo generates is only as accurate as your memory. A policy Pageguard generates reflects your actual deployed stack, including things you forgot about.

Pricing model: per-visitor subscription vs. per-document

Enzuzo's free tier caps at 5,000 monthly visitors, which is inadequate for most SaaS products past their first few weeks of real traction. The $7/mo Starter and $22/mo Growth plans are reasonable, but costs scale with traffic, which means your compliance bill grows whether or not you've changed anything about your compliance posture. Pageguard charges per document generated with no subscription and no pageview caps. For a founder who needs accurate documents now and doesn't want a recurring line item that inflates as traffic grows, that's a meaningfully different model.

Feature scope: consent banner and DSAR vs. document generation

This is the clearest practical divide. Enzuzo includes a consent banner (CMP), Google Consent Mode v2 support, and DSAR workflow automation. Pageguard does not. If you need a working cookie consent banner and a way to handle data subject requests through a structured workflow, Enzuzo does both in one product. Pageguard focuses on generating accurate compliance documents. These aren't competing on the same axis, and choosing between them is mostly about which problem you're actually trying to solve.

Mobile compliance: web-only vs. App Store and Google Play

Enzuzo's scope is web compliance. It does not generate Apple App Store privacy nutrition labels or Google Play Data Safety forms. For any team shipping on both web and mobile, that's a gap that requires a separate tool or a manual process. Pageguard covers both, which matters specifically when a product is about to go through App Store review.

Switching away from Enzuzo is straightforward on the technical side but involves a few real decisions.

The first thing you lose is the consent banner. If you're currently using Enzuzo's CMP to display a cookie consent widget, you'll need a replacement before you turn off Enzuzo. There are cookie-banner-only tools that handle this at lower cost, but you'll need to evaluate whether they support Google Consent Mode v2 if that matters for your ad setup.

The second thing you lose is DSAR workflow automation. If you've been routing data subject requests through Enzuzo's system, you'll need either a manual process or a different tool that handles request intake and response tracking.

On the document side, the practical steps are: run a Pageguard scan on your live site (no account needed), review the gap report with severity ratings to understand what your current documents are missing, and generate updated documents based on what the scan actually finds. Your old Enzuzo-generated documents can stay live until the new ones are ready; there's no technical dependency.

The main friction point is that Pageguard doesn't replace Enzuzo's consent and DSAR features. If you need both accurate documents and a consent banner, you're looking at two tools instead of one.

A solo founder who just submitted their first iOS app to the App Store. They've been using Enzuzo for their web privacy policy and it's worked fine. Then the App Store review comes back asking about the privacy nutrition label. Enzuzo has no path here. Pageguard scans the app's associated web presence, detects the relevant third-party SDKs, and generates the App Store privacy label alongside an updated web privacy policy. This is exactly the use case Pageguard was built for.

A 4-person SaaS team running PostHog, Stripe, Intercom, and a Cloudflare Workers backend. They answered Enzuzo's questionnaire when they launched, but their stack has evolved and they're not confident the policy reflects what's actually deployed. The questionnaire approach requires them to remember and re-enter every service change. A Pageguard scan detects the live stack and generates a policy grounded in what it finds. For a team that ships fast and doesn't maintain a meticulous changelog of third-party scripts, scan-based generation is worth the switch.

A small e-commerce brand with 40,000 monthly visitors and a DSAR coming in quarterly. This is the scenario where Enzuzo is probably still the right answer. The DSAR workflow automation is genuinely useful, and the $22/mo Growth plan is reasonable for the traffic volume. Pageguard doesn't handle DSAR workflows. Switching here would mean finding a separate DSAR tool, which adds complexity without obvious benefit.

A developer agency that builds and launches client sites on a recurring basis. Per-visitor subscription pricing compounds fast across multiple client domains. Pageguard's per-document pricing with no subscription means paying only when a new document is needed, not a monthly fee for every domain under management. For an agency running 15 client sites, that model is substantially cheaper and simpler.