Transparency alternatives to eversign
Other E-signature vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at eversign. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 28 that differ from eversign on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
eversign has 5 gaps in what we could measure: Status page with history, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, No third-party tracking before consent, security.txt (RFC 9116). The column “Found there, not found at eversign” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at eversign | Found at eversign, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BoldSignboldsign.comSee also Transparency alternatives to BoldSign | 83/100 | 3 Status page with history, Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Penneopenneo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Penneo | 52/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| SignEasysigneasy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SignEasy | 52/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Dropbox Signdropbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dropbox Sign | 48/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| Nitrogonitro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Nitro | 48/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 3 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change | Compare |
| SignWellsignwell.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SignWell | 43/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Notice before subprocessors change, +1 | Compare |
| Scrivescrive.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scrive | 39/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 4 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Public pricing, +1 | Compare |
| Signaturitsignaturit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Signaturit | 35/100 | 2 Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | Compare |
| Documensodocumenso.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Documenso | 26/100 | 2 Certifications named, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | Compare |
| eSignlyesignly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to eSignly | 26/100 | 2 Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure | 5 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +2 | Compare |
| Namirialnamirial.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Namirial | 26/100 | 2 Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | Compare |
| FP Signfp-sign.comSee also Transparency alternatives to FP Sign | 22/100 | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 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.