Transparency alternatives to Penneo
Other E-signature vendors we measure, sorted by how much we found at them and not at Penneo. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 28 that differ from Penneo on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
Penneo has 6 gaps in what we could measure: Data processing agreement, Public pricing, 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 Penneo” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Found there, not found at Penneo | Found at Penneo, not found there | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BoldSignboldsign.comSee also Transparency alternatives to BoldSign | 83/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116), +1 | 1 Named privacy contact | Compare |
| eversigneversign.comSee also Transparency alternatives to eversign | 70/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 2 Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| SignEasysigneasy.comSee also Transparency alternatives to SignEasy | 52/100 | 3 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 3 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Named privacy contact | Compare |
| Youtrustyoutrust.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Youtrust | 52/100 | 3 Public pricing, 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 Subprocessor list, Status page with history | Compare |
| Skribbleskribble.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Skribble | 39/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 3 Subprocessor list, Status page with history, Certifications named | Compare |
| Sign.comsign.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Sign.com | 35/100 | 2 Data processing agreement, Notice before subprocessors change | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | Compare |
| Signaturitsignaturit.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Signaturit | 35/100 | 2 Public pricing, No third-party tracking before consent | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | Compare |
| Documensodocumenso.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Documenso | 26/100 | 2 Public pricing, security.txt (RFC 9116) | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | Compare |
| eSignlyesignly.comSee also Transparency alternatives to eSignly | 26/100 | 2 Public pricing, Uptime SLA with a figure | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +1 | Compare |
| OneSpanonespan.comSee also Transparency alternatives to OneSpan | 26/100 | 2 Public pricing, Notice before subprocessors change | 5 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Status page with history, +2 | Compare |
| Dropbox Signdropbox.comSee also Transparency alternatives to Dropbox Sign | 48/100 | 1 Public pricing | 1 Subprocessor list | 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.