E-Signature
inSign
EU origin, foreign-owned Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by inSign GmbH · www.getinsign.de
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.
inSign at a glance
- Vendor
- inSign 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
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates inSign 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. inSign, from inSign GmbH, is a browser-based e-signature product with a distinct API-driven sealing service for company documents. 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
inSign, from inSign GmbH, is a browser-based e-signature product with a distinct API-driven sealing service for company documents. It scores strongest on signature levels, a flat 4, and integration and API, 4 to 6: a REST API drives sealing, and connectors are named for Microsoft SharePoint, Word, Excel, Outlook, SAP, Salesforce and BSI Software. It scores weakest on identity verification, 0 to 2, and pricing transparency, 1 to 2: we found no public information on how signers are authenticated, and while the pricing page states that name-entry and handwritten signatures are included and the qualified signature comes against a surcharge, the captured pages contain no plan prices or surcharge amount, so the cost of a qualified signature is not computable. Signing workflow scores sit at 2, with no public information on templates, signing order or reminders. Sovereignty scores run 4 to 6 on stated German processing — German company, German subcontractors, data centres of German companies, on-premises optional for enterprise — but the trust service provider behind the certificates is unnamed, and external sourcing places the company with the Swiss BSI group.
Speaks for it
- Signing runs in any current browser with no software installation
- A REST API drives the sealing process, with connectors named for Microsoft SharePoint, Word, Excel, Outlook, SAP, Salesforce and BSI Software
- Sealed documents are tamper-evident, with the seal shown in Adobe Reader as a blue bar
- The vendor states it is a German company using German subcontractors, processing data in Germany in data centres of German companies, with on-premises or dedicated hosting optional for enterprise
- A non-binding trial with the full feature set is offered without a credit card
Held against it
- We found no public information on how signers are authenticated for any signature level
- The certificates' issuer is referenced only as an unnamed Trust Service Provider, with no EU Trust List entry linked
- The captured pages contain no plan prices, envelope or document limits, or surcharge amount, so the cost of a qualified signature is not computable
- We found no public information on templates, signing order, reminders or bulk sending of signature requests
- We found no public information on an audit trail, its contents, the timestamp source, or how long signed documents and their evidence are retained
Best for
- You want to seal company documents automatically — the SAP connector automatically seals invoices and returns them to SAP, and the sealing service runs as an automated mass process through the REST API
- Your documents already live in SAP, Salesforce, Microsoft SharePoint or BSI Software and you want signing connected there
- You need a vendor stating German processing — German company, German subcontractors, data centres of German companies — with on-premises or dedicated hosting optional for enterprise
- You sign mostly with name-entry or handwritten biometric signatures, both included
Avoid if
- You must verify who issues the qualified certificates before buying — the captured pages reference only an unnamed Trust Service Provider
- You must budget before committing — the qualified signature comes against a surcharge and the captured pages contain no price figures
- Your compliance review requires documented signer identification — the only method described is the handwritten biometric signature, and we found no public information on identification methods, providers or accepted countries
- You need signed documents and their evidence kept for years — we found no public information on a retention period, and the privacy policy commits to deleting customer data when the relationship ends
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| eIDAS levels & trust services | 2 of 5 |
| Signer identification | 0.5 of 5 |
| Signing workflow & signer experience | 1 of 5 |
| Evidence, validation & retention | 1 of 5 |
| Integrations & API | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2.5 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
The captured pages do label the levels by their German abbreviations — name input and handwritten as simple/advanced included, qualified against a surcharge — and present qualified seals for company documents as a distinct service supporting advanced and qualified eIDAS certificates. But the trust service provider issuing those certificates is never named, the EU Trust List is not linked, and I found no public information on which plan or country offers which level, on ZertES, or on any level being printed in the signed document. 2 5
The HR Operations Lead
Name-entry and handwritten signatures are labelled EES/FES with QES at a surcharge, and the sealing service states it supports advanced and qualified certificates under eIDAS — but no qualified trust service provider is named and we found no public information on which plan or country offers which level, or which document needs which level. For our fixed-term contracts the qualified level is the whole point, and I cannot tell who issues it. 2 5
The Revenue Operations Lead
The pricing page labels the levels — name input and handwritten biometric signature included, QES against a surcharge — and the seal service says it supports advanced and qualified certificates under eIDAS. But no trust service provider is ever named, only "a Trust Service Provider", and I found no public information on an EU Trust List entry, ZertES, or which plan and country delivers which level. 2 5
The Integration Engineer
Simple and advanced signatures are labelled with plan availability, and the sealing service supports advanced and qualified certificates under eIDAS, but the trust service provider is referenced only generically as a TSP — we found no public information naming it or linking it to the EU Trust List, so I cannot verify who issues the certificates I would drive through the API. 2 5
The Data Protection Officer
Simple, advanced and qualified are all labelled — name entry and the handwritten biometric signature included, QES at a surcharge — and the seal service states support for advanced and qualified eIDAS certificates. But the trust service provider issuing the qualified certificate is only ever called "Trust Service Provider" with no name, no Trust List entry and no country or plan mapping, and we found no public information on the legal effect per level. 2 5
The Skeptic
Simple name-entry and handwritten signatures are included by default with qualified signatures sold only against a surcharge, and the seal service claims advanced and qualified eIDAS certificates — but the trust service provider that issues them is never named, no EU Trust List entry is linked, and no page says which country delivers which level. A blanket "erfüllt alle Anforderungen der eIDAS" from a provider that names no trust service is exactly the claim I treat as unproven. 2 5
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
I found no public information on how signers are identified for any level — nothing on email or SMS procedures, video, bank or eID identification, or a wallet — and no identification provider or accepted countries are named; the handwritten biometric signature is a signing method, not an identification. The only adjacent facts are the privacy policy's commitments to auto-delete application data when no contract is concluded and to delete customer data after the business relationship ends. 1 2 3
The HR Operations Lead
Only the handwritten biometric signature method is described, with its data encrypted under a certificate whose private key is held by a German notary. We found no public information on how a signer is actually identified for any level — no video ident, eID, bank ident or wallet, no identification provider, and no list of accepted ID documents or countries — which for a new hire signing on a phone is the make-or-break item. 1 2
The Revenue Operations Lead
The default method is handwritten biometric capture with the certificate's private key held by a German notary — that is signature data, not signer identification. I found no public information on how a signer is authenticated: no email or SMS codes, no video, eID or bank identification, no provider named and no countries stated. 1 2
The Integration Engineer
We found no public information on how signers are authenticated for any level — no email or SMS codes, no video or bank ident, no eID — only that the handwritten biometric signature is the default method; the certificate whose private key sits with a German notary concerns encrypting biometric signature data, not identifying the signer. 1 2
The Data Protection Officer
The only signer-identity facts are the biometric handwritten signature used by default and a certificate, private key deposited with a German notary, to encrypt the biometric signature data. We found no public information on which identification methods exist for the qualified level, who performs them, in which countries they work, or what happens to ID data afterwards. 1 2
The Skeptic
We found no public information on how signers are authenticated — no email or SMS codes, no video, eID or bank identification, no identification provider and no countries of operation. The only adjacent fact is that biometric signature data is encrypted with a private key deposited with a German notary, which speaks to data protection, not to identifying the signer. 1 2
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
Signing runs in any browser without installation, sealing works as an automated mass process, and use cases across HR, insurance, real estate and public administration imply real document workflows, but the captured pages show no templates with field placement, no signing order, no reminders, no bulk sending of signature requests, and nothing on whether signers need an account. I found no public information on signer languages, delegation or accessibility. 1 2 5
The HR Operations Lead
Browser-based signing with no installation and per-user web login for senders are stated, employment contracts are named among the use cases, and automated mass processing is described — but only for document sealing, not for sending contracts to signers. We found no public information on templates, signing order, reminders, delegation or mobile-specific signer experience, so the bulk-send-from-template flow I need for two hundred contracts a year is not evidenced. 1 2 5
The Revenue Operations Lead
Signers work in any current browser with no installation and individual senders can run documents through a web login, which is the frictionless signer side I want. But I found no public information on templates with locked fields, signing order, automatic reminders, bulk sending of signature requests or a sender status overview — the only mass automation documented is sealing company documents in bulk. 2 5
The Integration Engineer
Signing is browser-based with no installation and a web login for individual users, but we found no public information on templates, field placement, signing order, reminders, bulk sending or account-free signing; the documented mass processing applies to automated document sealing, not to signer-facing workflows. 1 2 5
The Data Protection Officer
Signing is browser-based with no software installation and an electronic archive is available, which serves the signer experience. Beyond automated mass sealing we found no public information on templates and field placement, signing order, reminders, delegation, or signer accessibility. 2 5
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
For a dispute eight years out I see tamper-evident seals whose certificate displays in Adobe Reader, an optional electronic archive, a certificate with the private key held at a German notary, and deletion commitments for applicant and customer data — but the captured pages show no audit trail, no completion certificate, no qualified timestamp source and no long-term validation. The retention period for signed documents and their evidence is not stated anywhere I can see, so I cannot confirm the proof outlives the subscription. 2 3 5
The HR Operations Lead
Tamper detection and the blue bar shown in Adobe Reader indicate integrity evidence travels with the sealed document, an electronic archive is included in one plan, and the privacy policy commits to deleting data after the business relationship ends. But we found no public information on audit trail contents, the timestamp source, long-term validation, or any retention period for signed documents and their evidence. 2 3 5
The Revenue Operations Lead
Tampering with a sealed document is detectable, the company seal shows as a blue bar in Adobe Reader, an electronic archive is included or optional, and the privacy policy auto-deletes applicant data when no contract results and deletes customer data when the relationship ends. I found no public information on an audit trail or completion certificate, the timestamp source, long-term validation, or how long signed documents and their evidence are kept. 5 3 2
The Integration Engineer
Tamper detection after sealing and the validation bar shown in Adobe Reader give basic integrity evidence, and the privacy policy commits to deleting customer data after the business relationship ends, but we found no public information on an audit trail, its contents, the timestamp source, long-term validation, or exporting documents together with their evidence into an archive. 2 3 5
The Data Protection Officer
The privacy policy commits to deleting customer data after the business relationship ends and application documents automatically when no contract is signed, and seals are tamper-evident and displayed in Adobe Reader. We found no public information on an audit trail, its contents including IP addresses, timestamp provenance, long-term validation, or how long signed documents and their evidence are kept. 2 3 5
The Skeptic
Tamper detection and the Adobe blue bar are claimed for seals, an electronic archive is an optional paid feature, and the privacy policy commits to deleting application and customer data after the process or relationship ends — but we found no public information on an audit trail and its contents, the timestamp source, or how long signed documents and their evidence are retained. 2 3 5
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 REST API connects external systems and drives the sealing service, with named connectors for Microsoft SharePoint, Word, Excel and Outlook, SAP, Salesforce and BSI software, and the SAP connector automatically seals invoices and returns them to SAP. However, I found no public API documentation, no webhooks and no sandbox — documentation is offered only together with an individual test access on request. 1 2 5
The HR Operations Lead
A REST API is offered with the sealing process controllable through it, individual test access including documentation is available on request, and connectors for Microsoft SharePoint, Word, Excel, Outlook, SAP, Salesforce and BSI Software are named. We found no public information on webhooks, a publicly documented API with a sandbox, or embedded signing, which keeps this short of what I would need to wire signature requests out of our HR system. 1 5
The Revenue Operations Lead
A REST API connects customer systems and drives the sealing process, with named connectors for Microsoft SharePoint, Word, Excel and Outlook plus SAP, Salesforce and BSI Software — Salesforce and SAP are exactly where I want signing to live — and a test instance with documentation is offered. I found no public information on webhooks, embedded signing in our own application, rate limits or SDKs. 1 5 2
The Integration Engineer
A REST API with API-controlled sealing including automated mass processing, a test instance delivered with documentation, and named connectors for Microsoft SharePoint, Word, Excel and Outlook, SAP with sealed documents returned automatically, Salesforce and BSI Software cover the DMS, ERP and CRM ground I need for portal embedding; however, we found no public information on webhooks, API versioning, rate limits or SDKs, and only the sealing service is confirmed reachable through the API rather than the qualified human signature. 1 2 5
The Data Protection Officer
A REST API and connectors for Microsoft SharePoint, Word, Excel and Outlook plus SAP, Salesforce and BSI Software are named, with automated invoice sealing through the SAP connector described. We found no public information on webhooks, a sandbox, embedded signing in the customer's own application, or public API documentation. 1 2 5
The Skeptic
A REST API is named and the connector list is concrete — Microsoft SharePoint, Word, Excel, Outlook, SAP, Salesforce and BSI Software — with sealing driven through the API and a test instance including documentation available on request. We found no public information on webhooks, published API documentation, rate limits or SDKs, so this stops short of a fully documented API. 1 2 5
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 vendor's own pages state a German company in Freising with development and operation on servers of German companies, German subcontractors, German data centres and 'Made and Hosted in Germany', while the independently sourced attributes return unknown for entity, ownership, residency and subprocessors and the ownership chain sits with the Swiss BSI group per the provenance note. No subprocessor list with locations, no data processing agreement and no certifications such as ISO 27001 or ETSI conformity appear in the captured pages, and the trust service provider is unnamed. 1 2 5
The HR Operations Lead
The vendor states it is a German company processing data in Germany in data centres of German companies, with hosting in Germany and an on-premises option for enterprise. However, no data centres are named beyond "German companies", no subprocessor list with locations is published, no certifications such as ISO 27001 or ETSI conformity appear, and the captured pages do not confirm ownership or a data processing agreement. 1 2 3 5
The Revenue Operations Lead
The vendor states it is a German company in Freising processing data in German data centres run by German companies with German subcontractors, made and hosted in Germany, and enterprise customers can choose on-premises or dedicated hosting. The ownership behind the German entity is not confirmed on the captured pages, and I found no public information on a published subprocessor list, certifications such as ISO 27001, or a data processing agreement. 1 2 5
The Integration Engineer
A German contracting company with processing in German data centres of German companies, optional on-premises or dedicated hosting, and the private key held by a German notary make a credible sovereignty story; but the trust service provider goes unnamed, we found no public information on a published subprocessor list or certifications such as ISO 27001, and the captured pages give no confirmation of the ownership situation. 1 2 3 5
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor states it is a German company in Freising processing data in German data centres of German companies, with software developed and operated in Germany, an on-premises option for enterprise, and the biometric certificate key deposited with a German notary. Only the website hoster Raidboxes is named as a processor though; we found no published subprocessor list for the signing service, no named trust service provider, no DPA or certifications, and the ownership classification places the company in the Swiss BSI group. 1 2 3 5
The Skeptic
A German company with German data centres, German subcontractors and optional on-premises hosting is stated on the vendor's own pages, and even the website hoster is named. But the trust service provider behind the certificates is unnamed, no subprocessor list with locations is published beyond "deutsche Subunternehmer", no certifications such as ISO 27001 or ETSI conformity are evidenced, and the captured pages do not state who owns the vendor — external sourcing places it with a Swiss group. 1 2 3 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 pricing page does state what is included — name input and handwritten signatures — and that qualified signatures come against a surcharge, plus discounted licences for nonprofits, startups and institutions and a non-binding trial without credit card. But no plan price, envelope or document limit, surcharge amount, identification fee or API price appears in the captured pages, so neither the cost of a qualified signature nor of any monthly volume is computable from public information. 2
The HR Operations Lead
The pricing page describes what each plan includes — name-entry and handwritten signatures included, QES at a surcharge — and mentions discounted licences plus a free trial without a credit card, but the captured pages contain no actual price figures, no envelope or document limits, and no amount for the QES surcharge. I cannot compute the cost of a qualified signature before sending an employment contract, which is precisely the number my budget needs. 1 2
The Revenue Operations Lead
The public pages show what is included versus extra — name input and handwritten signature included, QES at a surcharge, hosting and certificate included — plus discounted licences for non-profits, start-ups and institutions and a full-feature trial without a credit card. I found no public information on plan prices, envelope or document limits, the QES surcharge amount, identification fees, API pricing or overage, so the cost of a month of signing is not computable from public pages. 2 1
The Integration Engineer
The pricing page tells me which signature types are included and that the qualified signature comes at a surcharge, plus discounts for nonprofits and startups and a non-binding trial, but we found no public price figures at all — no plan prices, no per-signature cost for the qualified level, no identification or API fees — so I cannot compute the cost of any signing volume. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pricing page tells the buyer what is included versus surcharged — name entry and handwritten signing included, QES at a surcharge, the electronic archive included in one plan and optional in others — but no price figures, envelope limits, identification fees, API pricing, overage or contract terms appear. We found no public information on actual amounts, so no cost can be computed. 2 1
The Skeptic
A pricing page exists and states that simple and handwritten signatures are included while qualified signatures are "gegen Aufpreis", but the captured pages contain no plan prices, no envelope or document limits, no QES surcharge amount and no identification fees — the cost of a qualified signature is not computable from public pages. Startup, nonprofit and institutional discounts are announced without figures. 1 2
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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about inSign
Is inSign European?
Partly. whats-best.ai classifies inSign as EU origin, foreign-owned.
Where does inSign store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does inSign have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to inSign?
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: inSign 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 — Ownership, 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.
- 6 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 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
- 3 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 legal 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
- 4 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 (5)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.getinsign.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.getinsign.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.getinsign.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.getinsign.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 EIDAS levels & trust services — found from sitemap www.getinsign.de Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →