Transparency alternatives to Dropbox Sign
Other E-signature vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Dropbox Sign. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 27 that differ from Dropbox Sign on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Dropbox Sign has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change. The column “Found there, not found at Dropbox Sign” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Dropbox Sign | Found at Dropbox Sign, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BoldSignboldsign.comSee also Transparency alternatives to BoldSign | 83/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| eversigneversign.comSee also Transparency alternatives to eversign | 70/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Youtrustyoutrust.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Youtrust | 52/100 | 3 Subprocessor list, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, HTTPS enforced with HSTS | Compare |
| GetAcceptgetaccept.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GetAccept | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, Public pricing | Compare |
| SignEasysigneasy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SignEasy | 52/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Data location stated, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Sign.comsign.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sign.com | 35/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Data location stated, Status page with history, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| Penneopenneo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Penneo | 52/100 | 1 Subprocessor list | 1 Public pricing | Compare |
| Skribbleskribble.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Skribble | 39/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Signaturitsignaturit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Signaturit | 35/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Documensodocumenso.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Documenso | 26/100 | 1 security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| eSignlyesignly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to eSignly | 26/100 | 1 Uptime SLA with a figure | 3 Data location stated, Status page with history, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Namirialnamirial.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Namirial | 26/100 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 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.