Transparency alternatives to Certinal
Other E-signature vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Certinal. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 29 that differ from Certinal on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Certinal has 10 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Certinal” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Certinal | Found at Certinal, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BoldSignboldsign.comSee also Transparency alternatives to BoldSign | 87/100 | 8 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Status page with history, +5 | nothing | Compare |
| eversigneversign.comSee also Transparency alternatives to eversign | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +3 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Youtrustyoutrust.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Youtrust | 61/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Public pricing, +3 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| GetAcceptgetaccept.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GetAccept | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Penneopenneo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Penneo | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Dropbox Signdropbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dropbox Sign | 48/100 | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| Nitrogonitro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Nitro | 48/100 | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | nothing | Compare |
| SignEasysigneasy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SignEasy | 43/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 1 Data location stated | Compare |
| Skribbleskribble.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Skribble | 39/100 | 4 Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Certifications named | Compare |
| Sign.comsign.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sign.com | 35/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| Signaturitsignaturit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Signaturit | 35/100 | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
| signNowsignnow.comSee also Transparency alternatives to signNow | 32/100 | 4 Status page with history, Public pricing, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, +1 | 2 Data location stated, Certifications named | Compare |
Only criteria we could measure for both are counted. Where we could measure one and not the other, the row is silent: that would be a statement about our measurement, not about either vendor. Every single result with its source is on the two profiles.