Transparency alternatives to Namirial
Other E-signature vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Namirial. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 28 that differ from Namirial on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Namirial has 9 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, Uptime SLA with a figure, security.txt (RFC 9116), Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact. The column “Found there, not found at Namirial” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Namirial | Found at Namirial, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BoldSignboldsign.comSee also Transparency alternatives to BoldSign | 83/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +4 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| eversigneversign.comSee also Transparency alternatives to eversign | 70/100 | 6 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +3 | 2 Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Youtrustyoutrust.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Youtrust | 52/100 | 6 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Public pricing, +3 | 3 Status page with history, HTTPS enforced with HSTS, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| GetAcceptgetaccept.comSee also Transparency alternatives to GetAccept | 52/100 | 5 Data processing agreement, Data location stated, Certifications named, +2 | 2 Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Penneopenneo.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Penneo | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| SignEasysigneasy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SignEasy | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Dropbox Signdropbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dropbox Sign | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Nitrogonitro.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Nitro | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Skribbleskribble.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Skribble | 39/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 2 Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| SignWellsignwell.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SignWell | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Scrivescrive.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Scrive | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Sign.comsign.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sign.com | 35/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change, Named privacy contact | 2 Status page with history, No third-party tracking before consent | 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.