E-Signature
FP Sign
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by FP Digital Business Solutions GmbH · www.fp-sign.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.
FP Sign at a glance
- Vendor
- FP Digital Business Solutions GmbH
- 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
- Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates FP Sign 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. FP Sign, from FP Digital Business Solutions GmbH of the listed Francotyp-Postalia group, covers the three eIDAS levels EES, FES and QES, with qualified infrastructure and identification through the trust service providers D-Trust and Swisscom, identification stated to happen once, and QES tied to German written-form documents such as fixed-term employment contracts. 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
FP Sign, from FP Digital Business Solutions GmbH of the listed Francotyp-Postalia group, covers the three eIDAS levels EES, FES and QES, with qualified infrastructure and identification through the trust service providers D-Trust and Swisscom, identification stated to happen once, and QES tied to German written-form documents such as fixed-term employment contracts. Scores peak at 5 to 6 on signature levels, identity verification and signing workflow, backed by a drag-and-drop editor, recipients signing without an account, mobile signing and a workflow report showing who signed when. It is weakest on pricing transparency, at 2: we found no public information on plan prices, document limits, the per-signature cost of a qualified signature or add-on prices, and a proof of concept at 'ab 5.000€' is the only euro figure shown. Sovereignty scores cluster at 3 — we found no public information on where documents, audit trails and identification data are stored — evidence and retention sits at 4 and integration and API at 3 to 4, and the judges' scores show no genuine split on any criterion.
Speaks for it
- All three eIDAS levels — EES, FES and QES — are labelled in the product and configurable per document and recipient.
- Qualified signatures and identification run through the named trust service providers D-Trust and Swisscom.
- Identification for the qualified level is performed once and carried over to later signatures.
- Recipients sign without an account from browser or mobile app, with a workflow report showing who signed when.
- Countersigners of a signature request incur no cost.
Held against it
- We found no public information on plan prices, envelope or document limits, the per-signature cost of a qualified signature, identification fees or add-on prices.
- We found no public information on where documents, audit trails and identification data are stored and processed, or on a subprocessor list with locations.
- We found no public information on what the audit trail records — such as IP address and authentication method — on the timestamp provider, or on long-term validation and validation reports.
- API documentation is reachable only by submitting a contact form stating intended use cases, and API access is an add-on.
- Automated reminders and deadlines sit among the paid add-ons rather than the base product.
Best for
- You send German documents with statutory written-form requirements, such as fixed-term employment contracts, that need the qualified level.
- Your recipients sign only occasionally and should not have to create accounts.
- You run HR, finance or legal workflows with signing order and approvals configured in one drag-and-drop editor.
- Your signers return for repeated qualified signatures, with identification performed once and carried over.
Avoid if
- You need to compute the cost of your signing volume from public pages — the pricing page prices only a proof of concept at 'ab 5.000€'.
- Your procurement must document data residency and subprocessors before purchase — we found no public information on where documents, audit trails and identification data are stored and processed.
- Your developers must evaluate API documentation, a sandbox and rate limits before committing — the documentation sits behind a contact form and API access is an add-on.
- Your contracts may be disputed years later and need documented long-term validation and validation reports for the signed evidence.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| eIDAS levels & trust services | 3 of 5 |
| Signer identification | 3 of 5 |
| Signing workflow & signer experience | 3 of 5 |
| Evidence, validation & retention | 2 of 5 |
| Integrations & API | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 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
All three eIDAS levels are labelled in the product — EES, FES and QES — D-Trust and Swisscom are named as the trust service providers behind the qualified signatures, and the pages explain that QES replaces the statutory written form and is required for German fixed-term employment contracts, with the level configurable per document in the workflow editor. I found no public information on the providers' EU Trust List entries, on qualified electronic seals, on which plan or country offers which level, or on EUDI wallet support. 6 7 2 8
The HR Operations Lead
The product labels simple, advanced and qualified signatures (EES, FES, QES), names D-Trust and Swisscom as the trust service providers behind the qualified signature, and states for Germany that a QES is required for fixed-term employment contracts — precisely my volume. I found no public information on which plan or country each level is available in, the trust providers' entries on the EU Trust List, or qualified seals for company documents. 2 4 6 7
The Revenue Operations Lead
All three levels are labelled in the product (EES, FES, QES), D-Trust and Swisscom are named as the trust service partners behind the qualified signatures, and the pages tell me QES is what documents with written-form requirements like fixed-term employment contracts need — enough for me to route German paperwork to the right level. I found no public information on which plan or country carries which level, the EU Trust List entries, qualified electronic seals, or the signature level being printed in the signed file and audit trail. 4 6 7
The Integration Engineer
All three eIDAS levels are labelled and configurable per recipient and document in a drag-and-drop editor, qualified signatures are explicitly tied to eIDAS Article 3(12), and D-Trust and Swisscom are named as the trust service providers behind QES and identification. A German example of which documents need QES (fixed-term employment contracts) is given. We found no public information on which plans or countries carry which level, on a link to either provider's EU Trust List entry, or on qualified electronic seals, so I cannot map level to document type per market from public pages. 4 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
All three levels are labelled in the product — simple, advanced and qualified (EES, FES, QES) — and the trust service providers behind the qualified signatures are named as D-Trust and Swisscom, with the qualified level tied to German written-form rules such as fixed-term employment contracts. I found no public information on which plan or country offers which level, no link to an EU Trust List entry, no qualified electronic seals, and no statement that the level is printed in the signed document and audit trail, so the documentation stops at naming the levels. 6 7 4 2
The Skeptic
The levels are labelled and the trust services are real ones the vendor does not operate itself: EES, FES and QES in the product, qualified infrastructure from D-Trust and Swisscom, and German written-form guidance with QES billed per use. We found no public information on which plan delivers which level, no EU Trust List entry, no qualified seals and no statement that the level is printed in the signed document or audit trail. 4 6 7 8
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 — video ident, Post Ident, official photo ID and the German electronic identity card under §18 PAuswG — performed through D-Trust or Swisscom, with the accepted ID documents spelled out in the terms and the identification done once and reused for later qualified signatures. I found no public information on the countries beyond German-law identification, on retention or deletion of the ID data itself, or on the identification providers appearing in a subprocessor list. 6 5 7 3
The HR Operations Lead
Identification for the QES runs through the electronic ID card or video ident, the terms also list Post Ident and photographic ID including recognized foreign passports, and the providers D-Trust and Swisscom are named — the IDs my applicants actually hold appear covered. Identification is stated to happen once per signer, and retention is addressed (ten years as a rule, server logs deleted after seven days). I found no public information on methods documented per country, the distinction between automated and agent-based identification, or an identification provider listed as subprocessor. 3 5 6 7
The Revenue Operations Lead
Video-Ident, the electronic ID card (nPA), Post-Ident and official photo ID are named methods, D-Trust and Swisscom are named as the providers performing them, and the qualified identification happens once and is reused — one ident per signer rather than one per document. The only retention statement I found is the privacy policy's general rule of deletion once the purpose ends, in the order of ten years. I found no public information on which countries each method covers, retention specific to identification data, or a subprocessor listing for the ident providers. 3 5 6 7
The Integration Engineer
Video-Ident, Post-Ident, official photo ID and the eID function under §18 of the German ID Card Act are named, D-Trust and Swisscom are identified as the identification providers, and the terms describe the accepted ID documents. Identification for QES is performed once and reused, and a general ten-year deletion rule is stated. We found no public information on per-country availability, on automated versus agent-assisted identification, or on the identification providers appearing in a subprocessor list. 3 5 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
Identification methods for the qualified level are named — ID card, video ident, Post-Ident and official photo ID under section 18 of the German ID Card Act — with D-Trust and Swisscom named as performing them, and the identification happens once and carries over to later signatures. What I cannot see is what happens to the ID data afterwards beyond a general ten-year deletion rule, whether the ident providers appear as subprocessors, and I found no public information on EUDI wallet or national eID support beyond the German ID card. 6 5 7 3
The Skeptic
Methods are named — electronic ID card, video ident, Post-Ident, official photo ID — with identification running through D-Trust or Swisscom, the one-off nature of QES identification stated and a general retention figure of about ten years. We found no public information on which method works in which country beyond German identity documents, on automated versus agent-based identification, and no public information naming the identification providers as data recipients in the published recipient list. 3 5 6 7
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
Signature fields are placed with a drag-and-drop editor, recipients and their order are configured the same way, approvals sit inside the workflow, and the pricing page shows automated reminders and deadlines as add-ons, mobile signing in browser or app, recipients signing without an account, whitelabeling, and a completion report showing when each participant signed. I found no public information on bulk sending, delegation or substitute signers, signer languages, or signer accessibility. 7 2 5
The HR Operations Lead
Drag-and-drop field placement, recipient order, approvals, automated reminders and deadlines (both as add-ons), recipients signing without an account on mobile in browser or app, and a workflow report showing who signed when — that covers the core of my contract sending. I found no public information on templates as such, bulk sending, delegation or substitute signers, signer languages, or signer accessibility. 2 5 6 7
The Revenue Operations Lead
Field placement, recipients, signing order and approvals all live in one drag-and-drop workflow, automated reminders and deadlines run on their own, and signers sign without an account from browser or app — close to the self-running process I want, with a workflow report after completion showing who signed when. Reminders sit in the add-on column, and I found no public information on bulk sending, conditional fields, substitute signers, signer languages or accessibility for signers. 2 5 7
The Integration Engineer
Drag-and-drop for recipients, signing order, signature-field placement and multi-step workflows, automatic reminders and deadlines as add-ons, approvals in the workflow, signers without an account on web and app, and a workflow report showing who signed when — that is a solid core workflow. We found no public information on bulk sending, delegation or substitute signers, signer languages, or signer accessibility. 2 5 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
Drag-and-drop field placement, recipient ordering, automatic reminders and deadlines offered as add-ons, signing without an account, mobile use and a workflow report showing when each participant signed cover the working core, with approvals and whitelabeling adding team-level value. I found no public information on bulk sending, delegation or substitute signers, signer languages, or accessibility for signers. 2 7 5 6
The Skeptic
Recipients, signing order, approvals and per-document signature levels are configured in a drag-and-drop editor, recipients sign without an account on web or mobile app, and a workflow report shows who signed when. Reminders and deadlines sit among the paid add-ons rather than in the base product; we found no public information on templates, bulk sending, delegation, substitute signers or signer accessibility. 2 5 6 7
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
Signature logs, timestamps and revision-safe audit trails via automated reports are stated, a workflow report records when each participant signed, and retention is stated as deletion "in der Regel nach 10 Jahren", with an automatic deletion function sold as an add-on. For a contract disputed in eight years I still need what the pages do not show: I found no public information on the source of the timestamps, long-term validation (PAdES-LTV), a validation report or tool, or export of documents together with their evidence. 6 5 3 2
The HR Operations Lead
Signature logs, timestamps and revision-safe audit trails delivered through automated reports are described, and retention is stated — ten years as a general rule, server logs deleted after seven days, Chargebee data deleted on cancellation, with an automatic deletion function as an add-on. I found no public information on whether the audit trail records IP addresses and the authentication method in the signed PDF, on the timestamp provider, on long-term validation or a validation report, or on exporting documents together with their evidence. 2 3 5 6
The Revenue Operations Lead
There are signature logs, timestamps and revision-safe audit trails delivered through automated reports, a workflow report showing when each participant signed, and a general deletion horizon of around ten years in the privacy policy — while automatic deletion comes only as an add-on. I found no public information on IP addresses or the authentication method being captured in the trail, the timestamp provider, long-term validation such as PAdES-LTV, validation reports, or bulk export of documents together with their evidence. 2 3 5 6
The Integration Engineer
Signature logs, timestamps and revision-safe audit trails are promised, and the terms confirm continued access to workflows and documents even after a trial ends, with a general ten-year retention and an automatic-deletion add-on. We found no public information on the audit trail's contents — IP addresses and authentication method — on the timestamp provider, on long-term validation, or on a validation report. For archiving into our DMS, we found no public statement that signed documents can be exported with their evidence intact, which is the gap that matters most to me. 2 3 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
Signature logs, timestamps and revision-safe audit trails through automated reports are promised, and a retention period is actually stated — deletion in general after ten years, with an automatic deletion function sold as an add-on. But my core question is unanswered: I found no public information on whether the audit trail records IP addresses or the authentication method, who provides the timestamps, or any long-term validation or validation report, so what the evidence will still prove years later is not documented. 6 5 3 2
The Skeptic
Audit trails with signature logs, timestamps and automated reports are claimed, and retention is stated — around ten years for data, seven days for server logs, with an automatic deletion function sold as an add-on. We found no public information on the audit trail's contents such as IP address and authentication method, on whether timestamps are qualified and from which provider, or on long-term validation, validation reports and export of documents with their evidence. 2 3 5 6
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
Three integrations are named — MS Dynamics 365 Business Central, ELO ECM Suite and DATEV — alongside a REST API for CRM, ERP, HR or DMS systems, but API access is an add-on and the documentation sits behind a contact form where prospective users must state the use cases they intend to implement. I found no public information on webhooks, a sandbox, embedded signing, SDKs or rate limits. 1 8 2 5
The HR Operations Lead
Named connectors for MS Dynamics 365 Business Central, the ELO ECM Suite and DATEV, a REST API aimed at CRM, ERP, HR and DMS systems, and a developer centre are shown. However, the API documentation is reachable only by submitting a contact form stating my intended use cases with the vendor then responding, and API access is an add-on; I found no public information on webhooks, a sandbox, SDKs or rate limits. 1 2 8 9
The Revenue Operations Lead
Signing out of MS Dynamics 365 Business Central, ELO ECM Suite and DATEV is named, and a REST API is pitched for CRM, ERP, HR and DMS — CRM-embedded signing is at least claimed. But the API documentation is behind a contact form that asks which use cases I intend to implement, and the API itself is an add-on. I found no public information on webhooks, a sandbox, SDKs or rate limits, so my developers cannot size the integration before a sales conversation. 1 2 8 9
The Integration Engineer
A REST API for CRM, ERP, HR and DMS, named connectors for MS Dynamics 365 Business Central, ELO ECM Suite and DATEV, and a developer center exist — the ELO connector is exactly what I want for archiving. However, the API documentation sits behind a contact form where we must describe our intended use cases, and we found no public information on webhooks, a sandbox, API versioning and rate limits, SDKs, or embedded signing in our own application. Nothing public confirms that every signature level is reachable through the API rather than only the web app, so I cannot plan the portal embedding from public pages. 1 2 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
Three connectors are named — MS Dynamics 365 Business Central, ELO ECM Suite and DATEV — plus a REST API positioned for CRM, ERP, HR and DMS systems, which is more than a bare mention. The API documentation itself sits behind a contact form where prospective users must describe their use cases, and I found no public information on webhooks, a sandbox, SDKs or rate limits. 1 8 9 2
The Skeptic
Three business connectors are named — Dynamics 365 Business Central, ELO ECM Suite and DATEV — plus a REST API pitched for CRM, ERP, HR and DMS and a Developer Center page. The API documentation itself sits behind a contact form where you must declare your use cases before the vendor responds, and API access is an add-on; we found no public information on webhooks, a sandbox, embedded signing, SDKs or rate limits. 1 2 8 9
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 party is FP Digital Business Solutions GmbH, presented as part of the Berlin-based listed Francotyp-Postalia group, and the privacy policy names recipient categories such as the Francotyp-Postalia holding and its subsidiaries, banks, insurers and credit protection agencies. I found no public information on where documents, audit trails and identification data are stored and processed, on a subprocessor list with locations, or on certifications such as ISO 27001 or ETSI conformity. 3 4
The HR Operations Lead
The contracting entity is FP Digital Business Solutions GmbH in Germany, part of the listed Francotyp-Postalia group, and the qualified signature runs through the trust service providers D-Trust and Swisscom. I found no public information on where documents, audit trails and ID data are stored and processed, on a subprocessor list with locations — the privacy policy names only broad recipient groups — or on certifications such as ISO 27001. 3 4 6
The Revenue Operations Lead
The vendor presents as German — an entity of the listed Francotyp-Postalia group appears in the data recipients, complaint channels run via German De-Mail addresses, and D-Trust alongside Swisscom are the trust service partners — which points European. I found no public information on where documents, audit trails and identification data are stored, the ownership chain, certifications, or a subprocessor list, and the captured pages leave jurisdiction and data residency unconfirmed on their own. 3 4 6
The Integration Engineer
A German limited company is named as the responsible party in the privacy policy, D-Trust and Swisscom are European trust service providers, and a De-Mail channel is published. We found no public information on where documents, audit trails and identification data are stored and processed, and we found no public information on a subprocessor list with locations — the recipient categories published are generic. We also found no public information on certifications such as ISO 27001. 3 4 6
The Data Protection Officer
The German entity is named as controller in the privacy policy and the group is the listed Francotyp-Postalia of Berlin, but the trust service chain reaches a Swiss provider in Swisscom without any stated safeguard, and the data recipients named are only the holding and its subsidiaries, banks and insurances. I found no public information on where documents, audit trails and ID data are stored and processed, no subprocessor list with locations, and no published certifications. 3 6 4
The Skeptic
A German GmbH of the listed Francotyp-Postalia group contracts, and the qualified chain runs through D-Trust and Swisscom. We found no public information on where documents, audit trails and identification data are stored and processed, and no subprocessor list with locations or certifications with scope; the published recipient list of holding company, banks, insurances and credit agencies is not that list. 3 4 6
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 captured pricing page shows plan tiers, included onboarding and training, and add-ons such as API, SSO, automatic deletion and reminders, states that qualified signatures are billed per use and that countersigners pay nothing, and prices only the proof of concept at "ab 5.000€". I found no public information on plan prices, envelope or license limits, the per-signature cost of a qualified signature, identification fees or overage, so the cost of a signing volume is not computable from the captured pages. 2 6 5
The HR Operations Lead
A pricing page shows plans with inclusions and add-ons, the QES is billed per signature, countersigners incur no cost, and a proof of concept is priced "ab 5.000€". But the captured pricing page gives no plan prices, envelope or license limits, per-QES fee, identification fee or API price — so what my roughly two hundred contracts a year would cost is not computable from the public pages alone. 2 5 6
The Revenue Operations Lead
The pricing page names plans and a long add-on list (API, SSO, automatic deletion, automated reminders, process consulting) and billing is per qualified signature, but I found no public information on plan prices, envelope or document limits, the per-QES fee, identification fees or overage. The only euro figure I found is a proof-of-concept at ab 5.000€, plus the statement that countersigners pay nothing. I cannot compute the monthly cost of my signing volume from the public pages. 2 5 6
The Integration Engineer
The public pricing page sets out included onboarding and admin training, go-live hypercare, and add-ons including the API, single sign-on, automatic reminders and automatic deletion, with a proof of concept "ab 5.000€". We found no public information on plan prices, envelope or document limits, the per-signature price of a qualified signature, identification fees, or the price of any add-on. The cost of our monthly signing volume, and of the API I would integrate, is therefore not computable from public pages. 2 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
A pricing page compares plans and lists add-ons including the API, SSO and automatic deletion, and billing per qualified signature is mentioned — but I found no public information on the plan prices themselves, on document or envelope limits, on the per-signature cost of a qualified signature, on identification fees or on API pricing. The only figures visible to a buyer are a proof-of-concept priced "ab 5.000€", a free trial, and the assurance that countersigners pay nothing; the cost of a real signing volume is not computable from what is public. 2 6 5
The Skeptic
The pricing page names plan tiers and their inclusions — onboarding hours, admin training, mailserver domains — and states QES is billed per use, but we found no public information on the plan prices themselves, envelope or document limits, the per-QES rate, identification fees, or the price of the API, SSO and reminder add-ons. The only figures are a proof-of-concept "ab 5.000€" that can be offset up to 100% and the free countersigner; the cost of a signing volume is not computable from the captured pages. 2 5 6
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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about FP Sign
Is FP Sign European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies FP Sign as EU-Made.
Where does FP Sign store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does FP Sign have a free plan?
Yes. FP Sign has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to FP Sign?
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: FP Sign 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 — Data residency, Subprocessors, Legal entity. 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.
- 12 subprocessors 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
- 10 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
- 6 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
- 3 data 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 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
- 1 compliance 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
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are 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 (9)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.fp-sign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.fp-sign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.fp-sign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.fp-sign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Terms of service www.fp-sign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 EIDAS levels & trust services — found from sitemap www.fp-sign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 EIDAS levels & trust services — found from sitemap www.fp-sign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.fp-sign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.fp-sign.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →