CompareMeasured 2026-08-20
EXIF remover alternatives
Four tools that claim to strip EXIF data, checked against what their own DOM and JavaScript actually do, not what their landing page says.
This is our own tool for the same job: Remove metadata from image.
What actually differs in this cluster
Three of these four tools send your photo to a server. That is not a guess: two of them have a literal <form enctype="multipart/form-data"> in their DOM, and a third calls a documented server-side job API in its own JS bundle. The fourth, exifremover.com, is the one exception — all three of its same-origin scripts were read in full, and none of them contain a FormData, fetch or XMLHttpRequest call that carries the image. That is the same thing this site claims about itself, and it happens to be true here too.
How we checked
- Each competitor was opened once in a real Chrome profile, not headless, with the extensions the site owner normally runs. That is a single sample from a single machine on 2026-08-20, not a repeated or automated audit.
- Whether a file gets uploaded was decided by reading the page itself: the DOM was checked for a <form> and its enctype and action, and the site's own served JavaScript was fetched and read in full, grepped for FormData, fetch, XMLHttpRequest and multipart. A page that ships no such code path anywhere is the strongest evidence available short of watching the actual network traffic; a page with a <form action=... enctype="multipart/form-data"> is stronger still, because no code reading is needed at all.
- Ad networks were identified from the hostnames of loaded scripts (googlesyndication.com, doubleclick.net, ezojs.com and similar), not from a subjective read of how the page looks.
- Anything taken from a site's own visible copy, such as a stated retention window or a pricing tier, is labelled as that site's claim below, never treated as verified fact.
- What this cannot tell you: whether the same site behaves the same way tomorrow, on a different page of the same tool, or for a visitor in a different region. It is a snapshot, not a monitor.
This snapshot is from 2026-08-20. Sites change their code without notice — treat every cell below as dated, not as a live status.
4 sites, checked one at a time
| Site | Uploads your file | Ads | Pricing |
|---|---|---|---|
| exifremover.com | No — confirmed by reading its JS | AdSense banner | Free, no account |
| metadata2go.com | Yes — server-side job API | Banner ad slot | Freemium |
| verexif.com | Yes — plain PHP form post | AdSense banner | Free, no account |
| imgonline.com.ua | Yes — plain PHP form post | AdSense banner | Free, no account |
exifremover.com
An 18-year-old domain that already ranks first for this exact keyword; see keywords.md.
- Uploads your file
- No — confirmed by reading its JS. No <form> element on the page. All three same-origin scripts it loads (1,597 lines combined) were fetched and grepped for FormData, XMLHttpRequest, .upload and multipart: zero matches. The only fetch() calls found post small JSON payloads to /api/error and /api/success for telemetry — text only, never the image.
- Ads
- AdSense banner. document.scripts included three separate pagead2.googlesyndication.com/adsbygoogle.js tags, plus a Matomo analytics script.
- Pricing
- Free, no account. No pricing page, sign-in or paywall UI encountered.
- What the site itself says
- claim"All processing happens in your browser — your files never leave your device." This one happens to check out, but it is the identical style of claim caught false elsewhere in this exact category (decisions.md 裁决八), so it is listed as a claim rather than upgraded to a fact just because the code backs it up here.
- Where it beats us
- Handles video and PDF metadata as well as images. This site's own remover only handles PNG, JPEG and WebP.
metadata2go.com
- Uploads your file
- Yes — server-side job API. DOM has a form with enctype="multipart/form-data" and a file[] input. The site's own served JS bundle defines qgApiHelper.createJob(), which POSTs to /api/jobs?async=true through a JSON-wrapper function — a server-side job queue, not client-side processing.
- Ads
- Banner ad slot. An "Advertisement" label is placed directly next to the tool UI. No googlesyndication/doubleclick script tags were seen loaded on this particular page view, but the labelled slot is direct evidence of a banner unit.
- Pricing
- Freemium. Separate 'Pricing' and 'Log in'/'Sign up' links in the top nav, not opened to see tier details.
- What the site itself says
- claim"We try to remove all metadata, but it is not always possible to detect and remove every piece."
- Where it beats us
- Part of a ~10-tool metadata suite under one domain, so the same account covers more file types than a single-purpose page.
verexif.com
Loads a cookie-consent banner and legacy Google Analytics (ga.js); page defaults to Spanish.
- Uploads your file
- Yes — plain PHP form post. DOM has a literal <form action="https://www.verexif.com/ver.php" method="post" enctype="multipart/form-data"> with an input named foto_file. No client-side processing is claimed anywhere on the page; this is the simplest confirmed-upload case in the survey.
- Ads
- AdSense banner. document.scripts includes two pagead2.googlesyndication.com/adsbygoogle.js tags.
- Pricing
- Free, no account. No pricing, login or account UI encountered.
- Where it beats us
- Also accepts a photo URL from the internet, not just a local upload — useful when the image is already hosted somewhere.
imgonline.com.ua
The English /eng/ path for this tool 404'd during this check; the Russian-language delete-exif.php page was substituted as the functional equivalent.
- Uploads your file
- Yes — plain PHP form post. DOM has a literal <form action=".../delete-exif-result.php" method="post" enctype="multipart/form-data"> with an input named uploadfile. Page text confirms a server round trip: a result page is shown after processing.
- Ads
- AdSense banner. document.scripts includes pagead2.googlesyndication.com/adsbygoogle.js plus two same-origin ad scripts (advertising.js, artdc.js).
- Pricing
- Free, no account. No login, account or pricing UI anywhere on the page.
- What the site itself says
- claimThe site's own footer states processed images are stored no more than 2 hours after processing — its statement, not something this survey could verify.
- Where it beats us
- Nothing found in this survey that it does better than this site's tool; it is included because it ranks for the keyword and because the confirmed upload is worth knowing before you use it.
Questions people actually ask
- Does removing EXIF data online mean my photo gets uploaded?
- For three of the four tools checked here, yes — verexif.com and imgonline.com.ua post the file to a PHP endpoint directly, and metadata2go.com sends it to a server-side job API. exifremover.com was the one exception found: reading its own JavaScript in full turned up no code path that sends the image anywhere. This site's own EXIF remover never sends a file anywhere either, which you can check the same way — open the network tab, or just turn off your connection and try it.
- How was "uploads" decided for each site, rather than guessed from its marketing copy?
- By checking the DOM for a <form enctype="multipart/form-data"> and reading each site's own served JavaScript for FormData, fetch and XMLHttpRequest calls that carry a file. Marketing copy was never treated as evidence either way — see the Method section on this page.
- Is this comparison current?
- It was measured on 2026-08-20 from a single session on one machine. Sites change their code without notice, and this snapshot will age — it is not a live monitor.
