whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

E-Signature

eID Easy

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by eID Easy OÜ · eideasy.com

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

eID Easy: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai eID Easy: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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.

eID Easy at a glance

Vendor
eID Easy OÜ
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates eID Easy 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. eID Easy presents itself as an integration hub rather than a sender's document tool: one API and one contract reach Qualified (QES) and Advanced (AdES) eSignatures, eSealing, timestamping and validation through more than 80 qualified trust service providers, with 80+ methods covering 160+ countries and territories. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 3 Nov 2026. all sources

eID Easy alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Knows "legally binding" usually means a simple signature. Reads for the level the default plan actually signs at, the QTSP the provider does not operate itself, the per-QES and ident fees on top of the plan, the envelope limit, and "eIDAS-compliant" from a provider that names no trust service at all.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Skeptic

Panel median The Skeptic This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Skeptic
eIDAS levels & trust services 3 of 5 3 of 5
Signer identification 3 of 5 2.5 of 5
Signing workflow & signer experience 2 of 5 1.5 of 5
Evidence, validation & retention 3.5 of 5 4 of 5
Integrations & API 2.5 of 5 3 of 5
European sovereignty 3 of 5 3 of 5

eIDAS levels & trust services

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 — Not an electronic signature service: a PDF annotation or form tool that places a drawn or typed signature image without any eIDAS signature behind it.

3 — Electronic signatures at the simple level (SES) described as compliant with eIDAS; advanced and qualified levels and the trust service provider are basic or not described.

5 — Simple and advanced or qualified signatures (SES with AdES or QES) offered and named as eIDAS levels, with the plans or add-ons that include them and which documents need which level explained for Germany or the EU.

8 — SES, AdES and QES all documented with the plans and countries they are available in, the qualified trust service provider named with its 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 shown 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.

Report an error

The Skeptic

Advanced and qualified signatures each get their own pages, with legal effect spelled out — a QES legally equivalent to a handwritten signature across all EU member states, an AdES that cannot be denied legal effect under eIDAS — and signing routed through over 80 QTSPs across Europe, LATAM and APAC rather than a trust service the provider operates itself. We found no public information naming a specific QTSP with an EU Trust List entry, on plans or add-ons per level, or on the signature level being shown in the signed document and audit trail. eSealing is offered as a feature, though not stated as a qualified seal. 1 4 5

Report an error

Signer identification

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 — No signer authentication offered: by the vendor's own description anyone holding the link can sign.

3 — Signers authenticated by an email link with an access code or SMS code; identification for advanced and qualified signatures is basic or not described.

5 — Email, SMS or access-code authentication, plus identification methods for AdES or QES listed by name (for example video ident, eID card, bank ident), with the countries or ID documents they accept stated.

8 — Methods documented per level and country with the identification provider named, 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 completion guidance, EUDI wallet and national eID supported, ID data minimisation and retention committed, and the signer-facing privacy notice published.

Report an error

The Skeptic

Identification methods are described by category — eID, video identification, bank-based identity — with QES said to use two-factor authentication such as smart card plus PIN or mobile app plus OTP, and reusable high-assurance identity signals are mentioned. Coverage is stated only in aggregate, 80+ methods across 160+ countries, and we found no public information naming an identification provider or giving per-method countries and accepted ID documents. Deletion periods are published for files and logs generally rather than for identification data specifically. 1 3 5 6 7

Report an error

Signing workflow & signer experience

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 — Not a signing workflow: the product signs a document locally for the user and sends nothing out to other signers.

3 — Documents sent to one or more signers by email with fields placed on the PDF; templates, signing order and reminders are basic or not described.

5 — Templates with field placement, several signers with a signing order, automatic reminders, signing in the browser on mobile without an account, and a status overview for the sender.

8 — Roles and conditional fields, parallel and sequential order, bulk sending, delegation and substitute signers, team and approval workflows, a 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.

Report an error

The Skeptic

The captured pages document the signer-side flow — identity verification, signature creation, document locking — plus batch, one-shot and hash signing through the API, but the product presents itself as an integration hub for signature and identity providers rather than a sender's document tool. We found no public information on templates, field placement, signing order, reminders, a sender's status overview, or signer accessibility. 1 4 5

Report an error

Evidence, validation & retention

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 — No evidence produced: by the vendor's own description the result is a flattened PDF with a signature image and no audit trail or certificate.

3 — An audit trail or completion certificate with the signed PDF; its contents, timestamps and the retention period are basic or not described.

5 — An audit trail or certificate of completion recording signer events, time and authentication method, attached to or embedded in the signed PDF, timestamps applied, and signed documents downloadable.

8 — PAdES signatures with long-term validation, qualified timestamps from a named provider, a validation tool or report, retention period stated and configurable with 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.

Report an error

The Skeptic

Qualified timestamps under eIDAS, archival signatures timestamped by multiple providers so a single compromise does not invalidate the archive, a signature-extension feature, and a validation API that checks certificates and timestamps against official EU Trusted Lists and returns a machine-readable record make the long-term evidence story genuinely documented, though we found no public information naming the timestamp providers. Retention is stated and partly controllable — signed files deleted after 7 days or sooner on an API call, unsigned files after 14, logs after 90, with optional encrypted storage of signed containers — windows short enough that the customer's own archive carries the evidence. We found no public information on validation with independent tools or on post-termination access to documents and evidence. 3 8 9

Report an error

Integrations & API

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 — A closed web app by the vendor's own description: no API and no integrations offered.

3 — A few named integrations or a Zapier or Make connector; a documented API is basic or not described.

5 — A documented REST API with webhooks, plus named integrations with Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace and at least one CRM, HR or storage system.

8 — A sandbox, 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.

Report an error

The Skeptic

The API is the product: a full API reference with sample requests, one contract and one API covering advanced and qualified signatures, seals and timestamps across 80+ providers, plus a status page and developer documentation. We found no public information on webhooks, a sandbox, SDKs, published rate limits, or connectors into Microsoft 365, CRM, HR or document management systems — the integrations documented are the trust-service and identity providers themselves, not business applications. 1 4 8 10

Report an error

European sovereignty

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 — Proven non-EU on every dimension the evidence covers: non-EU contracting entity and non-EU storage of documents and signer data, with no EU option stated.

3 — One European element proven: an EU contracting entity or EU representative, EU data storage stated, an EU qualified trust service provider, or a published DPA, with the rest of the chain unstated.

5 — EU contracting entity or EU representative and EU storage of documents stated as standard or selectable, with a DPA offered; the hosting, identification or trust service chain is unstated or partly non-EU.

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.

Report an error

The Skeptic

The contracting entity is Estonian — EID Easy OÜ of Tallinn, registry code 14080014 — and the privacy policy states all information is stored and processed within the EU/EEA with no transfers to third countries, under Estonian law and an Estonian supervisory authority, with a DPA available and ISO 27001 claimed. We found no public information naming the EU data centres or a subprocessor list with locations, ownership is not evidenced, and the trust services themselves come from providers spanning Europe, LATAM and APAC. 1 3 10

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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 — A public "from" price or one priced plan, per user or flat.

5 — Plan prices public for the main plans with the billing period stated and the envelope or document limits and main features per plan listed.

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.

Report an error

The Skeptic

What the captured pages offer toward cost is a free demo and a 15-minute expert call. We found no public information on plan prices, envelope or document limits, per-signature QES or AdES pricing, identification fees, or API pricing — a buyer cannot compute any part of their cost from these pages. 1 7 10

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 6 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Hosting location Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Hosting options Not determined — uncited Report an error
Open source Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data processing agreement Not determined — uncited Report an error
Transfer impact assessment Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error

Questions about eID Easy

Is eID Easy European?

Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where eID Easy is based.

Where does eID Easy store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.

Does eID Easy have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.

What are the best alternatives to eID Easy?

As of 3 Nov 2026, the panel rates sproof sign (3.5/5), MOXIS (3.5/5) and Signicat Sign (3/5) highest among the other 22 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 sproof sign (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: eID Easy alternatives.

Where this could be wrong

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.

Do you know more about eID Easy? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (10)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor page eideasy.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Legal notice — found from the homepage www.eideasy.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.eideasy.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  4. 4 EIDAS levels & trust services — found from sitemap www.eideasy.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  5. 5 EIDAS levels & trust services — found from sitemap www.eideasy.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Signer identification — found from sitemap www.eideasy.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Signer identification — found from sitemap www.eideasy.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Evidence, validation & retention — found from sitemap www.eideasy.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Evidence, validation & retention — found from sitemap www.eideasy.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.eideasy.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →