Transparency alternatives to QuickSign
Other E-signature vendors we measure, sorted by how much they publish that QuickSign does not. This is a comparison of disclosure, not of features or fitness.
12 shown of 28 that differ from QuickSign on at least one criterion we measured for both. Public transparency score, not a product or security rating.
QuickSign 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 “publishes and QuickSign does not” is the one that closes them.
| Vendor | Score | Publishes, and QuickSign does not | QuickSign publishes, and they do not | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| BoldSignboldsign.com | 83/100 | 7 Data processing agreement, Subprocessor list, Data location stated, +4 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| eversigneversign.com | 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.com | 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.com | 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.com | 52/100 | 4 Subprocessor list, Data location stated, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| SignEasysigneasy.com | 52/100 | 4 Data processing agreement, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Dropbox Signdropbox.com | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Nitrogonitro.com | 48/100 | 4 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named, +1 | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Skribbleskribble.com | 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.com | 43/100 | 3 Data location stated, Public pricing, Certifications named | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Scrivescrive.com | 39/100 | 3 Data location stated, Certifications named, Named privacy contact | 1 No third-party tracking before consent | Compare |
| Sign.comsign.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.