E-Signature
Docusign eSignature
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Docusign, Inc. · www.docusign.com
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Docusign eSignature at a glance
- Vendor
- Docusign, Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Docusign eSignature 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Docusign eSignature, sold by Docusign, Inc. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Docusign eSignature, sold by Docusign, Inc. of San Francisco, scores highest on signing workflow, 6-7, and integration and API, 6-7: shared team templates, conditional fields, bulk sending, delegated signing, 44+ signing languages, a free developer account with API access from the Standard plan up, and more than 1,000 partner integrations are all evidenced. It scores lowest on sovereignty, 1-2, and pricing transparency, 2-3. The only locational statement is data centres 'across three EU countries'; the judges found no residency commitment, and the privacy policy lists recipient categories — including affiliates and joint marketing partners — rather than subprocessors with locations. No price figure appears on the captured pages, and the cost of a qualified signature is a 'contact an expert' conversation. Evidence and retention scored 3-4, with an audit trail stated for every agreement but no public information on its contents, timestamp source or a retention period. The judges did not meaningfully split: the flagged splits found none above the cutoff, every criterion's range spans at most one point, and signature levels landed at 4.
Speaks for it
- Signing workflow scored 6-7, evidencing shared team templates, bulk sending, delegated signing, conditional fields and 44+ signing languages.
- A developer centre offers a free developer account and API access from the Standard plan up, alongside more than 1,000 partner integrations.
- All three eIDAS levels are named and mapped to plans, with simple signatures included in every plan.
- Identity verification methods are named concretely, from automatic validation of most government-issued identity documents to CLEAR and ID.me accounts and an identity wallet for repeat signers.
- A 30-day refund, usable once per customer, is published alongside one-time bonuses of five ID checks and five SMS deliveries.
Held against it
- Sovereignty scored 1-2: the contracting vendor is Docusign, Inc. of San Francisco, and the only locational statement is data centres across three EU countries.
- No price figure appears on the captured plans pages, and the cost of a qualified signature is a contact-an-expert conversation; pricing transparency scored 2-3.
- Evidence and retention scored 3-4: an audit trail is stated for every agreement, but we found no public information on its contents, the timestamp source or a retention period.
- No qualified trust service provider is named and no EU Trust List entry is linked, so the signature levels are labelled but not documented.
- We found no public information on which countries or ID documents each identity verification method covers, or on retention and deletion of ID data.
Best for
- Your agreements live in the Microsoft stack — Word, Outlook, Teams, SharePoint, Dynamics 365 and Power Automate connectors are named and evidenced.
- You send agreements at volume across languages and need bulk sending, delegated signing and shared team templates.
- You build your own applications and want embedded signing, with a free developer account and API access from the Standard plan up.
Avoid if
- You must confirm EU residency for documents, audit trails or ID data, or review a subprocessor list, before contracting.
- You need a published price for plans or a per-signature qualified signature fee to budget signing volume.
- Your compliance review requires documented audit trail contents, a timestamp source or a retention period for signed evidence.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| eIDAS levels & trust services | 2 of 5 |
| Signer identification | 2.5 of 5 |
| Signing workflow & signer experience | 3.5 of 5 |
| Evidence, validation & retention | 1.5 of 5 |
| Integrations & API | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 1 of 5 |
eIDAS levels & trust services
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Which signature levels the platform offers — simple, advanced, qualified, and qualified seals — through which qualified trust service provider on the EU Trust List, for which countries and legal regimes (eIDAS, ZertES), and on which plans.
0 — No signature level named; the platform calls its signature "legally binding" without saying which kind it is.
3 — Simple signatures by default with "advanced" or "qualified" mentioned as available, but no trust service provider named and no statement on which plan or country offers which level.
5 — SES, AdES and QES offered and labelled in the product, the qualified trust service provider named, and which documents need which level explained for at least Germany or the EU.
8 — Every level documented with the plans and countries it is available in, the QTSP's entry on the EU Trust List linked, QES under eIDAS (and ZertES where relevant) stated, qualified electronic seals for company documents, and the signature level printed in the signed document and audit trail.
10 — Levels are an explicit product decision: the provider is or contracts a named QTSP with its conformity assessment published, level selection per document type or template, remote QES without a separate account, EUDI wallet support stated with a date, and the legal effect per level documented for the main EU markets.
The Legal Counsel
Simple, advanced and qualified signatures are all named and mapped to plans — simple in every plan, advanced in higher plans, qualified with a dedicated page stating its legal equivalence to a handwritten signature — which goes beyond a bare legally-binding label. But we found no public information naming a qualified trust service provider, linking the EU Trust List, or covering qualified seals, ZertES, or which level is printed in the signed document and its evidence record. 1 2 5 6
The HR Operations Lead
Simple, advanced and qualified levels are all named, with simple on every plan, advanced on higher plans, and the qualified level described as the legal equivalent of a handwritten signature — the piece a fixed-term contract under written form needs. But we found no public information naming the qualified trust service provider behind the QES or stating which plan and countries carry it, and the QES page itself points to contacting an expert. 1 2 5 6
The Revenue Operations Lead
All three eIDAS levels are named and positioned — simple signatures in every plan, AES in advanced plans, QES sold as the legal equivalent of a handwritten signature in the EU — which is more than a bare 'legally binding' claim. But no qualified trust service provider is named, and we found no public information on which countries or plans carry QES, on qualified seals, or on ZertES, so the levels are labelled without being documented. 1 2 5 6
The Integration Engineer
All three eIDAS levels are named and productised — simple signatures on every plan, advanced electronic signatures listed as an addition for higher plans, and QES described as the legal equivalent of a handwritten signature with special EU status. We found no public information naming the qualified trust service provider or its EU Trust List entry, and no mention of ZertES or qualified seals, which keeps this below a fully labelled offering. 1 2 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
All three eIDAS levels are named and labelled — simple signatures included in every plan, advanced signatures placed in the higher plans, and qualified signatures marketed as the legal equivalent of a handwritten signature. Yet we found no public information on the qualified trust service provider behind the qualified signature, its entry on the EU Trust List, which countries offer which level, ZertES, or qualified seals for company documents. 1 2 5 6
The Skeptic
Simple, advanced and qualified levels are all labelled — simple in every plan, advanced in the higher ones — but we found no name for the qualified trust service provider behind the QES, no EU Trust List link and no country-by-country availability. QES itself sits behind 'Contact an expert to learn more about our QES solutions' rather than a stated plan and price. No captured page explains which document types require which level for Germany or the EU. 1 2 5 6
Signer identification
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How the signer is identified for each level: email and SMS codes, video ident, eID card (Online-Ausweis), bank ident or EUDI wallet — who performs it, in which countries it works, and what happens to the ID data afterwards.
0 — Email link only; no statement on how signers are authenticated.
3 — Email plus SMS or access code, with "ID verification" mentioned as an add-on but no methods, provider or countries named.
5 — Identification methods for AdES and QES listed by name (for example video ident, eID, bank ident), the identification provider named, and the countries or ID documents they accept stated.
8 — Methods documented per level and country, automated and agent-based ident distinguished, reuse of an identification for later signatures explained, retention and deletion of ID data stated, and the ident provider listed as subprocessor.
10 — Identification is transparent end to end: every method with its countries, assurance level and failure rate or completion guidance, EUDI wallet and national eID supported, ID data minimisation and retention committed, and the signer-facing privacy notice published.
The Legal Counsel
Methods are named — one-time passcodes, phone authentication, liveness-checked video selfies, automated validation of most government identity documents, with CLEAR and ID.me as named providers and an identity wallet that reuses a verification across agreements. We found no public information on per-country coverage of each method, the provider behind the AI identity proofing used for qualified signatures, or retention of identification data beyond a generic no-longer-than-necessary statement. 2 5 7 8
The HR Operations Lead
Methods are named — automatic validation of most government-issued identity documents, video-selfie liveness with randomized facial movements, one-time passcodes and phone authentication — with an identity wallet so a returning signer re-uses a prior check and identity proofing said to complete a QES check in minutes. We found no public information on which countries' ID documents are accepted, nor on retention or deletion of ID data beyond a generic sentence that personal data is kept no longer than necessary. 5 7 8 3
The Revenue Operations Lead
Methods are named concretely — SMS and phone authentication, automatic validation of government ID documents, biometric liveness via video selfies, CLEAR or ID.me accounts — with an identity wallet so repeat signers re-apply a prior verification, IAL2 stated and human oversight mentioned. What blocks a higher score: we found no public information on which countries or ID documents each method accepts, on video ident, national eID cards or an EUDI wallet, or on retention and deletion of ID data. 2 5 7 8
The Integration Engineer
The Identify portfolio names its methods concretely — liveness-checked video selfies, automatic validation of government-issued identity documents, one-time passcodes, phone authentication, and CLEAR or ID.me accounts — tied to IAL2 and the advanced-signature attainment, with an identity wallet that reuses verification on later agreements and QES identity proofing described as AI-driven. We found no public information on which countries or identity documents are accepted, on retention or deletion of ID data, or on eID card or EUDI wallet methods. 1 5 7 8
The Data Protection Officer
Methods are named for each level — AI-driven identity proofing with video selfies and liveness checks for the qualified level, automatic validation of government ID documents, one-time passcodes, phone authentication, and reuse of CLEAR or ID.me accounts — and a wallet lets verified signers re-apply their details later. But we found no public information on the countries each method works in beyond "most government-issued" documents, on who in the trust chain keeps the biometric material, or on retention and deletion of ID data beyond a generic "no longer than necessary" sentence in the privacy policy. 3 5 7 8
The Skeptic
The Identify portfolio names real methods — automatic government ID validation, liveness checks via video selfies, one-time passcodes, phone authentication — with CLEAR and ID.me named as account providers and an identity wallet that reuses a verification on later agreements. We found no public information on which countries or ID documents each method covers, who performs the identity proofing for a qualified signature, or what happens to ID data afterwards. 5 7 8
Signing workflow & signer experience
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting a document out and back signed: templates and form fields, signing order and roles, bulk sending, reminders and delegation, signing without an account or app, mobile signing, and accessibility for signers.
0 — Single-recipient signing of an uploaded PDF; no templates, order or reminders.
3 — Multiple signers and basic templates, but no signing order, no bulk send, and signers must create an account.
5 — Templates with field placement, sequential and parallel signing order, automatic reminders and expiry, signing without an account on mobile, and a status overview for the sender.
8 — Roles and conditional fields, bulk sending, delegation and substitute signers, team and approval workflows, branded signer experience, signer languages listed, and signer accessibility addressed.
10 — The workflow is complete and documented: web forms and self-service signing links, mixed signature levels within one process, in-person and remote signing, a published accessibility conformance statement, and team administration with shared templates and audit of sender actions.
The Legal Counsel
Shared team templates, conditional fields, bulk sending, delegated signing, custom branding, web forms, 44+ signing languages and no-code workflow automation are all evidenced, with routing to the right people in the right order in the Microsoft connectors. We found no public information on signer accessibility, automatic reminders and expiry, or in-person and mixed-level signing within one process. 1 2 10 11
The HR Operations Lead
For my volume this is close to complete: shared team templates, bulk send to multiple recipients at once on Business Pro, delegated signing, conditional fields, mobile-optimized web forms that convert existing PDFs with AI in minutes, custom branding and 44+ signing languages. We found no public information on automatic reminders or on signer accessibility, so I stop short of the top band. 2 10
The Revenue Operations Lead
This is close to what I want under a quote desk: shared team templates with draft versioning and publish-only-when-ready, conditional logic, bulk send, delegated signing, eWitness, 44+ signing languages, custom branding, embeddable web forms, Word routing 'to the right people in the right order', and real-time status notifications in Teams. Two gaps keep it down: we found no public information on automatic reminders and expiry, on signer accessibility, or confirming that signers need no account. 1 2 10 11
The Integration Engineer
The workflow machinery is broad and plan-labelled: reusable and shared team templates, conditional fields, mobile-optimised web forms with versioned drafts, bulk sending and eWitness in Business Pro, delegated signing from Standard, custom branding, and 44-plus signing languages, with Word routing documents automatically to the right people in the right order. We found no public information on automatic reminders and expiry or on signer accessibility. 2 10 11
The Data Protection Officer
The workflow is broad — bulk sending, delegated signing, web forms with conditional fields and versioning, shared team templates, custom branding, embedded forms and 44+ signature languages — and the Microsoft connectors route documents "to the right people in the right order". We found no public information on automatic reminders and expiry, on signing without creating an account, or on signer accessibility. 1 2 10 11
The Skeptic
Shared team templates, conditional fields, bulk sending, delegated signing, custom branding, 44+ signing languages and versioned web forms are all evidenced, with routing to the right people 'in the right order' and live status updates. We found no public information on signer accessibility or in-person signing, which leaves the top of this criterion out of reach. 1 2 10 11
Evidence, validation & retention
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
What proves a signature years later: the audit trail and certificate of completion, qualified timestamps, long-term validation (PAdES-LTV), validation reports, and how long signed documents and evidence are kept — and whether they can leave the platform.
0 — A signed PDF and nothing else; no audit trail, no statement on storage or deletion.
3 — An audit trail or completion certificate exists, but its contents, the timestamp source and the retention period are unstated.
5 — Audit trail with signer events, IP addresses and authentication method embedded in or attached to the signed PDF, timestamps applied, documents downloadable, and the retention period stated.
8 — PAdES signatures with long-term validation, qualified timestamps from a named provider, a validation tool or report, configurable retention and automatic deletion, and bulk export of documents with their evidence.
10 — Evidence outlives the subscription: LTV and archive timestamps documented, validation verifiable with independent tools such as the EU DSS validator, export to a DMS or archive with evidence intact, and post-termination access and deletion committed in the terms.
The Legal Counsel
An audit trail is stated to be generated and stored for every agreement, PKI-based tamper-evident certificates are described, and documents can be stored to the customer's own cloud services. But the pages do not document the trail's contents such as signer events, IP and authentication method, and we found no public information on timestamp providers, a retention period for signed evidence, long-term validation, archive timestamps or independent verification — the substance a dispute in eight years would rest on. 2 3 5 11
The HR Operations Lead
An audit trail is automatically generated and stored for every agreement, signatures are described as PKI-based and tamper-evident, and identity checks compile into a secure proof file. But we found no public information on the audit trail's contents, the timestamp source, long-term validation, or a concrete retention period for signed documents and their evidence. 11 5 8 3
The Revenue Operations Lead
An audit trail is automatically generated and stored for every agreement and the PKI certificate is described as tamper-evident, but beyond that we found no public information on the audit trail's contents, the timestamp source, long-term validation, a validation report, or how long signed documents and evidence are kept. The privacy policy's 'no longer than necessary' covers personal data, not contracts. 3 5 11
The Integration Engineer
An audit trail automatically generated and stored for every agreement is stated, and signatures rest on PKI certificates described as tamper-evident, but we found no public information on the trail's contents, the timestamp source, the retention period, or any long-term validation and export-with-evidence path. For someone who has to archive signed documents with their evidence in a DMS, that is thin. 2 5 11
The Data Protection Officer
A "robust" audit trail is automatically generated and stored for every agreement, and PKI-based certificates are described as tamper-evident. But the captured pages say nothing about the trail's contents — we found no public information on IP addresses or the authentication method recorded — nor on qualified timestamps, long-term validation, a validation report, or the retention period: the privacy policy commits only to keeping personal data "no longer than necessary". 2 3 5 11
The Skeptic
An audit trail is automatically generated and stored for every agreement, and the privacy policy holds personal data only as long as processing requires, but we found no public information on what the trail contains, the timestamp source or a retention period for signed documents. We also found no public information on PAdES long-term validation, qualified timestamps, validation reports or export of documents together with their evidence. 3 11
Integrations & API
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Signing from inside the systems where contracts are made: a documented API with webhooks and a sandbox, embedded signing, and connectors for Microsoft 365, CRM, HR, DMS and ERP systems.
0 — No API and no integrations; everything happens in the vendor's web app.
3 — A few named integrations or a Zapier connector, and an API mentioned without public documentation.
5 — A documented REST API with webhooks and a sandbox, plus connectors for Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace and at least one CRM or HR system named.
8 — Embedded signing in the customer's own application, API access to every signature level, versioned API with rate limits published, SDKs, and connectors for named DMS, ERP or HR systems with their scope.
10 — Integration is a product: white-label and embedded flows documented, API parity with the web app, a status page with incident history, deprecation policy, and a marketplace of integrations with stated maintainers.
The Legal Counsel
A developer centre with a free developer account, embeddable signing flows, API pre-population of forms and named connectors for Outlook, Word, Teams, SharePoint, Dynamics 365, Power Automate, SAP, Slack and the major cloud storages make integration clearly a product line. We found no public information on webhooks, SDKs, API versioning, rate limits or a status page with incident history. 1 2 6 10 11 12
The HR Operations Lead
There is a developer centre with API overview and a free developer account, embedded and API pre-populated web forms, and named connectors for Word, Outlook, Teams, SharePoint, Power Automate and Dynamics 365, plus a thousand-plus partner integrations in the App Center. We found no public information on webhooks, rate limits, SDKs or a named HR system connector, and my contracts start life in the HR system. 2 6 10 11
The Revenue Operations Lead
Signing from where deals actually happen is real: Dynamics 365 sends agreements for signature while capturing customer data, Word, Outlook, Teams, SharePoint and Power Automate cover the Microsoft stack, Slack and Stripe connect the workspace, and over 1,000 partner integrations plus the API ship from Standard upward, with a public developer centre, a free developer account and embeddable forms. We found no public information on webhooks, SDKs, rate limits or whether every signature level is reachable through the API. 2 6 10 11
The Integration Engineer
This is the closest to my needs: a Developer Centre with an API overview and a free developer account from the Standard plan upward, forms embeddable into our own applications with API pre-population, and a deep Microsoft stack — Word, Outlook, Teams, SharePoint, Dynamics 365 and Power Automate — plus a catalogue of over a thousand partner integrations. We found no public information on webhooks, API versioning or published rate limits, SDKs, or whether every signature level is reachable through the API rather than only in the web app. 1 2 6 10 11
The Data Protection Officer
Integration is substantial: a free developer account with a Developer Centre and API overview, embedded web forms, over 1,000 partner integrations, and Microsoft connectors spanning Word, Outlook, Teams, SharePoint, Dynamics 365 and Power Automate. We found no public information on webhooks, a sandbox, rate limits, SDKs or a service status page with incident history. 1 2 6 10 11
The Skeptic
A developer centre with a free developer account, API access from the Standard plan up, embedded web forms and named connectors for Word, Outlook, Teams, SharePoint, Power Automate, Dynamics 365 and the four cloud drives make a broad surface, with an App Center claiming more than 1,000 partner integrations. We found no public information on webhooks, published rate limits, SDKs, or API access to each signature level. 1 2 6 10 11
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity, the trust service provider and their owners are, where documents, audit trails and ID data are stored and processed, and who the subprocessors are. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline.
0 — Non-EU contracting entity, no statement on where documents and signer data are stored, and subprocessors unnamed.
3 — An EU entity contracts, but documents or signer data are processed outside the EU by default without an explained safeguard, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU contracting entity and EU data storage stated, with a DPA, but the hosting, identification or trust service chain is non-EU-controlled without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU entity, documents, audit trails and ID data stored in named EU data centres, an EU qualified trust service provider, subprocessor list with locations published, and certifications (ISO 27001, ETSI conformity) published.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, EU entity and EU QTSP, every processing location and subprocessor European, customer-selectable data residency, and certifications with their scope published.
The Legal Counsel
The contracting entity is a US company in San Francisco; the pages speak of EU data centres across three countries and a decade of European operation, but we found no public information committing that documents, audit trails and signer identification data are stored in the EU by default. Ownership, data residency and the subprocessor list are unconfirmed on the vendor's own pages, and the published disclosure categories include affiliates, joint marketing partners and public authorities. 3 5
The HR Operations Lead
The contracting entity is Docusign, Inc. of San Francisco, and we found no public information confirming where documents, audit trails and ID data are stored by default or who the subprocessors are; the disclosure page lists only generic recipient categories. The one European statement I can find is that the company operates data centres across three EU countries, which is a footprint rather than a residency commitment. 5 3
The Revenue Operations Lead
The contracting entity is Docusign, Inc. of San Francisco, so the paper is signed with a US company, and the captured pages say only that there are 'data centres across three EU countries' without confirming where documents, audit trails or ID data live by default. We found no public information on subprocessors and their locations, an EU trust service chain, or published ISO 27001 or ETSI certifications; the only certification shown is FedRAMP, a US authorization. 3 5 10
The Integration Engineer
The contracting vendor is Docusign, Inc. of San Francisco, and beyond a statement that the company has operated in the region for over a decade with data centres across three EU countries, we found no public information on where documents, audit trails and identity data are stored or processed, and the privacy policy names only categories of recipients rather than subprocessors with locations. 3 5
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting vendor is the San Francisco company, and we found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, ownership, data-residency commitments or a subprocessor list — the only locational statement is marketing copy about data centres "across three EU countries". The identification chain includes external providers CLEAR and ID.me, and the privacy policy discloses recipients including service providers, affiliates, joint marketing partners and advertising and marketing partners. 3 5 8
The Skeptic
The vendor is a US company based in San Francisco, and the only hosting statement we found is unnamed 'data centres across three EU countries' — no named locations and no residency commitment for documents, audit trails or ID data. The privacy policy lists recipient categories rather than a subprocessor list with locations, and we found no public information on an EU trust service provider in the chain or ISO 27001/ETSI certifications with their scope. 3 4 5
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the cost of their signing volume from public pages alone — plan prices, envelope or document limits, the per-signature price of AdES and QES, identification fees, API pricing and overage.
0 — No public prices at all; every plan is a sales conversation.
3 — Plan prices published, but envelope limits, QES and identification fees are unstated — the cost of a qualified signature is unknowable.
5 — Plans with envelope or document limits priced, but at least one commonly incurred cost (per-QES fee, video ident, API access, overage) is missing or "on request".
8 — Every plan and limit priced publicly, AdES and QES priced per signature, identification fees and overage stated, API pricing published, and contract term and notice period given.
10 — Complete cost computability: the cost of a given monthly volume per signature level derivable from public pages, volume tiers published, and every add-on and price-change term on a public page.
The Legal Counsel
The public pricing page gives plan structure, user limits per plan, unlimited envelopes on IAM plans, a one-time 30-day refund and five-time SMS and ID-check bonuses, but we found no public information on monetary plan prices, per-signature fees for advanced or qualified signatures, or identification and overage fees. The cost of a qualified signature — the number I need before approving a signing policy — is not computable from what is published. 2 5
The HR Operations Lead
The pricing page shows plan structure and sweeteners — five identity checks and five SMS deliveries as one-time bonuses, customisable envelope limits, unlimited envelopes on the IAM plan, a 30-day refund — but we found no public price for any plan, a qualified signature or an identity check, and the QES page says to contact an expert. I cannot know the cost of a qualified signature before the contract is signed, which fails my basic test. 2 5
The Revenue Operations Lead
The pricing page maps plan tiers to features — simple signatures in every plan, AES in advanced plans, unlimited envelopes with IAM, a one-time bonus of five ID checks and five SMS deliveries, a 30-day refund usable once per customer, a free start — but we found no public information on the plan prices, envelope limits, per-signature QES or AES fees, identification costs or overage. For a revenue team budgeting qualified signatures at volume, the number cannot be computed from public pages. 2 5
The Integration Engineer
The plan ladder and its gating are public — simple signatures on all plans, advanced signatures and bulk sending gated to higher tiers, up to 50 users, IAM plans with unlimited envelopes, and a 30-day once-per-customer refund — but we found no price figures, per-plan envelope limits, per-signature QES or identification fees, or API pricing on the captured pages. The only quantified items are one-time bonuses of five identity checks and five SMS deliveries, so the cost of a given signing volume is not computable from what we saw. 2
The Data Protection Officer
A public plans-and-pricing page differentiates the plans feature by feature, offers adjustable envelope limits, unlimited envelopes on the top plan, and one-time bonuses of five ID checks and five SMS deliveries. But no price figure appears in the captured pages, and the cost of a qualified signature, identification and API access is a matter of contacting an expert rather than a published number. 2 5
The Skeptic
The plans page shows what each tier includes, a one-time bonus of 5 ID checks and 5 SMS deliveries, unlimited envelopes on IAM plans, customisable envelope limits and a 30-day refund — but we found no public information on plan prices, envelope-limit numbers, per-signature QES or identification fees, API pricing or overage. QES is a 'contact an expert' conversation, so the cost of a qualified signature is not computable from these pages. 2 5
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Docusign eSignature
Is Docusign eSignature European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Docusign eSignature as Rest of world.
Where does Docusign eSignature store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Docusign eSignature have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Docusign eSignature?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates Penneo (2.5/5), Youtrust (Yousign) (2.5/5) and MOXIS (2.5/5) highest among the other 14 E-Signature products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Penneo (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Docusign eSignature alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 30 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 7 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 hosting facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 data fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 subprocessors fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.docusign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page ecom.docusign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.docusign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.docusign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 EIDAS levels & trust services — found from sitemap www.docusign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 EIDAS levels & trust services — found from sitemap www.docusign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Signer identification — found from sitemap www.docusign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Signer identification — found from sitemap www.docusign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Signing workflow & signer experience — found from sitemap www.docusign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Signing workflow & signer experience — found from sitemap www.docusign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.docusign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.docusign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →