E-Signature
Legalesign
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Legalesign Ltd · legalesign.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.
Legalesign at a glance
- Vendor
- Legalesign Ltd
- 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 Legalesign 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Legalesign is an e-signature platform from Legalesign Limited, registered in Scotland, United Kingdom. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 3 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Legalesign is an e-signature platform from Legalesign Limited, registered in Scotland, United Kingdom. Its strongest area is signing workflow, scored a uniform 7 for templates with per-participant fields, sequential and simultaneous routing, signer, approver and witness roles, bulk send from a CSV, and account-free signing links. Integration and API follows at 7-8 on REST and GraphQL behind an OpenAPI 3 specification, five Apache-licensed SDKs, webhooks verifiable by public key or HMAC, and a sandbox throttled to 100 API calls per hour. Evidence and retention spans 6-8: long-term validation with external timestamps and an audit log inside the signed PDF draw credit, while the timestamp provider remains unnamed. Identity verification is weak because qualified signing presumes the signer holds a Digidentity credential and open links let anyone sign. Sovereignty is the other weak area: the vendor markets a UK-based platform with ISO 27001, and we found no public information on data residency, a data processing agreement or subprocessors. Pricing transparency scored 1-2 on a 14-day trial with all features and no credit card required.
Speaks for it
- Signing workflow scored a uniform 7, covering templates with per-participant fields, sequential and simultaneous routing, signer, approver and witness roles, and bulk send from a CSV
- Integration and API scored 7-8 for REST and GraphQL behind an OpenAPI 3 specification, five Apache-licensed SDKs, webhooks verifiable by public key or HMAC, and embeddable signing components
- Evidence and retention scored 6-8 for long-term validation, Adobe Reader's Certified mark, an audit log appended inside the signed PDF, and retention configurable up to 99 years per team or per document
- Qualified electronic signatures via Digidentity are documented alongside PAdES and eIDAS advanced signatures, including the rule that signers after a qualified signature are restricted to qualified signing
- Crown Commercial supplier status and published ISO 27001 certification are confirmed on the vendor's pages
Held against it
- Identity verification scored 2-3, as the only pathway described is qualified signing for holders of an existing Digidentity credential, and we found no public information on identification methods, countries or ID documents
- Sovereignty scored 1-2: the contracting entity is a UK one, and we found no public information on where documents, audit trails and signer data are stored, on a data processing agreement, or on subprocessors
- The timestamp behind long-term validation is attributed only to an unnamed external trusted source
- We found no public information on which plans include qualified signing, the countries it covers, or a linked EU Trust List entry for Digidentity
- We found no public information on API access to qualified signatures, production rate limits, or the scope of the named connectors
Best for
- You need to embed document preparation and signing inside your own application, with REST and GraphQL APIs, verifiable webhooks and embeddable components
- Your team sends high volumes of templated agreements — bulk send personalised from a CSV with automatic reminders and recipient roles covers this
- You must keep signed contracts verifiable for years, with long-term validation inside the PDF and retention set per document type up to 99 years
- You are a UK-based buyer for whom a Scotland-registered vendor with Crown Commercial supplier status and ISO 27001 certification fits procurement
Avoid if
- You need signers identified within the platform — the pages describe identification only as holding an existing Digidentity credential, and open links let anyone sign with email confirmation optional
- You must document EU data residency, a published data processing agreement or a subprocessor list for compliance — the contracting entity is a UK one and we found no public information on these
- Your signers complete complex forms on iPhones — the vendor notes these may not work well in embedded mobile contexts and recommends jumping to a browser window
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| eIDAS levels & trust services | 2.5 of 5 |
| Signer identification | 1 of 5 |
| Signing workflow & signer experience | 3.5 of 5 |
| Evidence, validation & retention | 3.5 of 5 |
| Integrations & API | 4 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 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 — 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.
The Legal Counsel
Qualified electronic signatures via Digidentity and advanced signatures under eIDAS are both named and documented, including how one document may mix levels before and after a qualified signature. But we found no public information on which plans include qualified signing, in which countries it is available, the provider's EU Trust List entry, or qualified seals and ZertES. 4 5 11
The HR Operations Lead
Qualified signatures are offered via Digidentity and advanced signatures are described against the eIDAS framework, with real operational detail such as signers after a qualified signer being restricted to qualified signing only. We found no public information on which plans or add-ons include qualified signing, the trust service provider's trust-list entry, qualified seals, or how the level appears in the signed document and audit trail. That places it in the middle of this band for me. 4 5 11
The Revenue Operations Lead
AdES and QES are both named as eIDAS levels, with Digidentity named as the provider of qualified and PAdES signatures and clear rules for mixing levels in one document — once a QES is applied, every later signer must also use QES. We found no public information on which plans include which level, the trust service provider's EU Trust List entry, ZertES or qualified seals, so a buyer cannot yet map levels to their document types. 4 5 11
The Integration Engineer
Qualified signatures through Digidentity are documented in real depth — when the option is offered, and that signers after a QES are restricted to QES while earlier signers may use advanced signatures — with PAdES and the eIDAS advanced pillar also named. We found no public information on which plans include which level, the countries covered, a linked trust-list entry for Digidentity, or qualified seals. 4 5 11 1
The Data Protection Officer
The advanced level is named against eIDAS and qualified signatures are documented through Digidentity as provider, including the rule that signers after a first qualified signature are restricted to qualified signatures while earlier signers may use advanced ones. However, we found no public information on which plans include which level, the countries covered, a link to the provider's EU Trust List entry, or qualified seals, so the level documentation stops well short of the top. 4 5 11
The Skeptic
Advanced and qualified are both on the table — the vendor invokes the eIDAS advanced-signature pillar and documents QES through Digidentity, a trust service it does not operate itself, down to the detail that everyone signing after a QES signer is restricted to QES. But the captured pages never say which plans include QES or what it costs per signature, which countries it covers, or link the trust service provider's entry on the EU Trust List, and qualified seals are not mentioned. 4 5 11
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 — 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.
The Legal Counsel
Qualified signing presumes the signer already holds a valid Digidentity credential, so identification happens upstream of the platform and we found no public information describing it — no access codes, SMS, video, eID-card or bank identification methods, no countries or accepted ID documents, and nothing on what happens to ID data afterwards. The open Link module points the other way: anyone can sign, with email confirmation optional. 4 5 13
The HR Operations Lead
The only identification pathway the pages describe is qualified signing through Digidentity, offered to a signer who already holds a valid Digidentity signature. We found no public information on email or SMS authentication for ordinary signings, on the ID documents or countries accepted, or on what happens to identification data afterwards. For a new hire completing a contract on their phone, I cannot see from these pages how they would identify themselves. 4 5
The Revenue Operations Lead
The only identification mechanism the captured pages show is that a QES signer must already hold a valid Digidentity certificate, so the identification itself happens outside the platform before signing. We found no public information on email or SMS authentication, identification methods by country, or what happens to ID data afterwards. 4 5
The Integration Engineer
Documents go out by email with recipient events such as email opened and visiting, and the open signing link can optionally confirm the signer's email; for a qualified signature the signer must already hold a valid QES from Digidentity. We found no public information on identification methods by country, who performs them, or what happens to ID data afterwards. 4 12 13
The Data Protection Officer
Identification for qualified signatures rests entirely on the signer already holding a valid certificate from Digidentity — the provider is named, but the ident method itself, the countries and ID documents accepted, and what happens to the ID data afterwards are not shown. The self-service link feature allows anyone to go and sign, with email confirmation described only as optional afterwards. 4 5 13
The Skeptic
The only identification story in the captured pages is that a QES signer must already hold "a valid QES from Digidentity" — how they got it, with which ID documents, in which countries, and what happens to that ID data is not described. The self-service Link page says "anyone can go and sign a document" with email confirmation optional afterwards, and the API-verification pages describe developer keys rather than signer identification. 4 5 6 7 13
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 — 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.
The Legal Counsel
The workflow evidence is deep: templates with per-participant fields, sequential and simultaneous routing, Signer, Approver and Witness roles, bulk sending personalised from a CSV, reassignment and rejection, automatic reminders, and account-free signing through self-service links and a signer Inbox. What holds it below the top band is that we found no public information on a branded signer experience, the languages offered to signers, or accessibility conformance. 1 8 9 11 12 13
The HR Operations Lead
Templates with per-participant field placement, sequential and simultaneous signing, signer, approver and witness roles, reassignment, and bulk send from a CSV cover the two hundred contracts I send each year, with self-service links and a centralised signer inbox rounding it out. Mobile signing is documented for simple documents, with the vendor noting that complex forms on iPhones may not work well. I hold it below the top of the band because we found no public information on conditional fields, signer languages or signer accessibility. 1 8 9 11 13
The Revenue Operations Lead
This is where the product earns its keep for sales ops: reusable templates held in a library with every field locked to a participant, sequential and simultaneous signing, approver and witness roles, bulk send personalised from a CSV, automatic reminder emails, recipient reassignment, and no-code self-signing links anyone can sign on without an account. We found no public information on conditional fields, a branded signer page, signer languages or accessibility, which is what holds it back from a higher rating. 1 8 9 11 12 13
The Integration Engineer
The workflow model is documented unusually well: templates with participant roles of signer, approver and witness, sequential or simultaneous ordering, reassignment and rejection, sender fields, bulk send personalised from a CSV, and a centralised signer inbox. We found no public information on a branded signer experience, signer languages or signer accessibility. 8 9 1 11
The Data Protection Officer
Templates with per-participant field assignment, roles of signer, approver and witness, sequential and simultaneous order, bulk send personalised from a CSV, reassignment and letting a previous recipient supply an unknown signer are all documented, with automatic reminders visible as webhook events. We found no public information on branded signing pages, signer languages, or accessibility for signers. 8 9 11 12
The Skeptic
Templates with library reuse, sender fields and per-participant field assignment are documented, with Signer, Approver and Witness roles, sequential and simultaneous order, bulk send from a CSV, reassignment and rejection, and a no-code embeddable public signing link. That is most of a mature workflow; we found no public information on conditional fields, a branded signer experience, or signer accessibility in the captured pages. 1 8 9 13
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 — 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.
The Legal Counsel
This is what I look for before a dispute: long-term validation with the timestamp from an external trusted source, an audit log of every action appended within the signed PDF, Adobe Reader displaying the Certified mark, and retention set per document type for up to 99 years with logged permanent deletion of files and field data. The timestamping is attributed only to an unnamed external trusted source, and we found no public information on a dedicated validation report or post-termination access commitments in the terms. 5 10 11 13
The HR Operations Lead
Long-term validation with timestamps from an external trusted source, an audit log described as a record of every action appended inside the PDF, and Adobe Reader's certified mark give me confidence a fixed-term contract will still verify years later. Retention is configurable per team and per document up to 99 years, with logged, permanent deletion and wiping of field data. The timestamp provider is not named, and we found no public information on a validation report or bulk export of documents with their evidence. 10 11 13
The Revenue Operations Lead
The signed PDF carries its own verification: PDF certification with long-term validation, timestamps from an external trusted source, the audit log appended inside the document, and Adobe Reader applying a Certified mark — plus retention configurable per team and per document for up to 99 years with logged, permanent deletion. The timestamp provider is not named on the captured pages, and we found no public information on a validation report tool or bulk export of documents with their evidence. 5 10 11 13
The Integration Engineer
Long-term validation with timestamps from an external trusted source, the audit log appended inside the signed document, Adobe Reader showing the Certified mark, retention configurable per team and per document up to 99 years with logged permanent deletion, and the final PDF retrievable through an API endpoint or a webhook — exactly the export-with-evidence path I need for our archive. The timestamp provider is not named, and we found no public information on independent validation tools or post-termination access terms. 11 10 12 13
The Data Protection Officer
Long-term validation with a timestamp from what is described only as an external trusted source, certification validated by Adobe Reader, and the audit log appended inside the signed PDF are documented, alongside retention configurable per team or per document up to 99 years with logged permanent file deletion and wiped field data. The timestamp provider is never named, and we found no public information on a validation report tool, bulk export of evidence, or post-termination access and deletion commitments. 10 11 12
The Skeptic
Long-term validation is documented with the timestamp taken from "an external trusted source" rather than the vendor's own machine, the audit log is appended inside the signed PDF, Adobe Reader shows the Certified mark, and retention is configurable per team and per document type up to 99 years with logged permanent deletion. The external timestamp provider is never named, though, and a validation report tool and bulk export of documents together with their evidence are not described. 10 11 13
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 — 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.
The Legal Counsel
An API-first offering: REST and GraphQL behind an OpenAPI specification, SDKs for five languages under open licences, sandboxed keys with a published throttle, webhooks with signature and HMAC verification plus a WebSocket feed, embedded signing components, and connectors including Salesforce, Zapier and a Microsoft Power Automate-to-SharePoint flow. We found no public information on API access to qualified signing, production rate limits, or the scope of each connector. 1 3 6 7 12 13
The HR Operations Lead
The vendor positions itself as API-first and shows it: REST and GraphQL with an OpenAPI specification, five Apache-licensed SDKs, a throttled sandbox, real-time webhooks with HMAC and public-key verification, and embedded signing through a web component or iframe. Named connectors exist for Salesforce and Voyager Infinity, with a Power Automate and SharePoint flow demonstrated. We found no public information on API control of the qualified signature level or connectors for HR systems with their scope, so I land here rather than higher. 1 3 6 7 12 13
The Revenue Operations Lead
Signing from inside our own stack is close to the full picture: REST and GraphQL APIs with webhooks and websockets, an OpenAPI spec, five official SDKs, a sandbox, webhook payloads verifiable by public key or HMAC, and embedded signing via a recommended web component or iframe, with a Salesforce plugin, Zapier and a Power Automate-to-SharePoint example for CRM and storage. We found no public information on driving every signature level through the API, published production rate limits, or the scope of the ready-to-go connectors. 1 3 6 7 12 13
The Integration Engineer
The strongest area for my purposes: a sandbox with a published hundred-calls-per-hour test limit and a test banner on the signing page, REST and GraphQL on a versioned path with an OpenAPI specification, webhooks with public-key and HMAC verification plus a dashboard log and manual trigger, five Apache-licensed SDKs, Postman and MCP support, and embedded signing via an iframe-free signer component. Salesforce and Voyager Infinity plugins and a Power Automate-to-SharePoint demo cover connectors, but we found no public information on reaching qualified signatures through the API or on production rate limits. 1 12 13 3 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
An OpenAPI 3 specification, REST and GraphQL with webhooks and a websocket feed, five Apache-licensed official SDKs, HMAC and key-based webhook verification with logging and manual triggering, a sandbox with a published throttle of 100 API calls per hour, and embedded signing via a web component or iframe are all documented. Connectors are named only for Salesforce, Voyager Infinity and Zapier, with a SharePoint flow shown as a demo, and we found no public information on production rate limits or API access to qualified signatures. 1 3 6 7 12 13
The Skeptic
This is the strongest area: REST and GraphQL with an OpenAPI 3 specification, real-time webhooks with public-key and HMAC verification, WebSockets, a sandbox throttled at 100 calls per hour, five Apache-licensed official SDKs, Postman, Zapier, and Salesforce and Voyager Infinity plugins. Embedded signing is documented twice over, iframes and an iframe-free Signer web component, plus document viewer and editor components; what the pages do not show is API access to qualified signatures or connectors for document-management, ERP or HR systems. 1 3 6 7 12 13
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 — 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.
The Legal Counsel
The contracting party is fully identifiable — Legalesign Limited, company number SC425013, registered office in Glasgow, Cambridge operating address — and the platform markets itself as UK-based with ISO 27001, but the United Kingdom is not an EU jurisdiction and none of the EU elements I test is proven. We found no public information on where documents, audit trails and signer data are stored or processed, on a data processing agreement, or on subprocessors and their locations. 1 2 11
The HR Operations Lead
Legalesign Limited, registered in Scotland, is the proven contracting entity, the platform is marketed as UK-based, and ISO 27001 certification is published. We found no public information on where documents, audit trails or identification data are stored, on hosting options, or on a published data processing agreement and subprocessor list. As a buyer I can verify the United Kingdom entity and nothing else in the processing chain. 1 2 11
The Revenue Operations Lead
The contracting entity is proven: Legalesign Limited, registered in Scotland, with the platform describing itself as UK-based and ISO 27001 certified. The captured pages state no EU entity or representative, no data-residency commitment, no subprocessor list with locations and no published data processing agreement, so the European chain is unproven rather than disproved. 2 5 11
The Integration Engineer
The contracting entity is Legalesign Limited, registered in Scotland, and the platform is described as UK-based with ISO 27001 certification and Crown Commercial supplier status. We found no public information on where documents, audit trails and signer data are stored, on a published data processing agreement or on subprocessors, and the qualified provider Digidentity is named without its jurisdiction. 2 11 5
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is proven — Legalesign Limited, registered in Scotland with a Cambridge address, marketing itself as a UK-based platform — but that is a United Kingdom entity, not an EU one, and ISO 27001 is published. We found no public information on where documents, audit trails and signer data are stored, on a data processing agreement, or on the subprocessor chain behind the Digidentity qualified signatures; an EU-labelled API hostname appears in the documentation but is not a residency commitment. 1 2 11 12
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is proven and it is not an EU one: Legalesign Limited, registered in Scotland, United Kingdom, company number SC425013, marketing itself as a "secure Uk-based platform", with ISO 27001 published. We found no public information on where documents, audit trails or signer data are stored, on a data processing agreement, or on the subcontractor chain; the eu-api hostname in the API examples is the only European-adjacent hint and it proves nothing about data residency. 1 2 11 12
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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 — 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.
The Legal Counsel
The captured pages state a 14-day free trial with all features and no credit card, and the site navigation links a Pricing page, but no plan price, envelope or document limit, per-signature cost for advanced or qualified signing, identification fee, API price or contract term appears with a figure on the pages we read. A buyer cannot begin to compute the cost of their signing volume from this material. 1 2 11
The HR Operations Lead
The captured pages give me a 14-day all-features trial with no credit card required and a sandbox throttled to 100 API calls per hour, and the site navigation includes a Pricing link, but no plan prices, document limits, contract terms or per-signature qualified costs appear on any page I read. I cannot compute the cost of two hundred contracts, and the Digidentity qualified signature is described only as cost-effective, with no figure. For my own decision I would have to ask sales. 1 2 5 7 11
The Revenue Operations Lead
The only pricing facts on the captured pages are a 14-day free trial with all features and no credit card required, and a sandbox limit of 100 API calls per hour. We found no public information on plan prices, envelope or document limits, per-signature costs for advanced or qualified signatures, identification fees or API pricing; a Pricing page is listed in the site navigation but its contents were not captured. 1 2 7 11
The Integration Engineer
The only public pricing information is a fourteen-day free trial with all features and no credit card required, though a Pricing page is linked in the site navigation. We found no public plan prices, envelope or document limits, per-signature QES or identification fees, or API pricing on the captured pages. 1 2 11
The Data Protection Officer
A 14-day free trial with all features and no credit card required is stated, and a pricing page is listed in the site navigation, but we found no public information on plan prices, billing periods, envelope or document limits, per-signature costs for advanced or qualified signatures, identification fees, overage, or contract terms. A buyer cannot compute the cost of any signing volume from the captured pages. 1 2 7 11
The Skeptic
A 14-day trial with no credit card required is the only pricing fact on any captured page; a Pricing link exists but no plan price, envelope or document limit, per-signature QES or identification fee, or API price appears in these captures. A buyer cannot compute the cost of any signing volume from what is public here. 1 2 11
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 6 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined | — | 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Legalesign
Is Legalesign European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Legalesign is based.
Where does Legalesign store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
Does Legalesign have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Legalesign?
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: Legalesign alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — 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.
- 14 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
- 4 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 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 support 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 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (13)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page legalesign.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Terms of service — found from the homepage legalesign.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Code repository (open-source licence) — found from the homepage github.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 EIDAS levels & trust services — found from sitemap docs.legalesign.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 EIDAS levels & trust services — found from sitemap docs.legalesign.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Signer identification — found from sitemap docs.legalesign.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Signer identification — found from sitemap legalesign.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 Signing workflow & signer experience — found from sitemap docs.legalesign.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 9 Signing workflow & signer experience — found from sitemap docs.legalesign.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 10 Evidence, validation & retention — found from sitemap docs.legalesign.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 11 Evidence, validation & retention — found from sitemap legalesign.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations & API — found from sitemap docs.legalesign.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 13 Integrations & API — found from sitemap docs.legalesign.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →