Built here, or adapted here

A comparison written by a vendor is an argument rather than a survey, and the one useful thing it can do is show its working. Each page here takes provisions one at a time, states what the Act asks for, and says where a platform built against a different statute is already strong and where it is not. Where the honest answer is that the incumbent should be kept, the page says so and gives the conditions under which that holds.

Adapted to the Act, or built against it is the section so far. It sets a GDPR-first platform against four things the DPDP Act turns on: the Sec. 5(3) option for the Data Principal to read the notice in English or any Eighth Schedule language, the Sec. 6(4) requirement that withdrawing be as easy as consenting was, consent taken in places a tag manager cannot see, and the Sec. 6(10) obligation to prove, if the question arises in a proceeding, that a notice was given and a consent obtained. It ends in eight questions to put to any platform — this one included — each with a way to settle it in a trial account rather than in a meeting, and a section on what has to survive a migration.

Two things it deliberately does not do. It makes no assertion about what any named product does today, because that changes and this page would not; and it does not treat a feature grid as evidence. The provisions themselves are set out in Learn, the platform side of the argument in Features, and the position this company argues from is stated plainly enough to disagree with.