E-Signature
MOXIS
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by XiTrust Secure Technologies GmbH · www.moxis.co
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.
MOXIS at a glance
- Vendor
- XiTrust Secure Technologies 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 MOXIS 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. MOXIS, an e-signature platform from XiTrust Secure Technologies GmbH of Graz, Austria, is strongest on signing workflow, where scores run 7 to 8: sequential, parallel and conditional signing with approval and escalation logic, bulk sends to 10,000 contacts and 100 documents per click, and unlimited external signers without extra licences are all evidenced. 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
MOXIS, an e-signature platform from XiTrust Secure Technologies GmbH of Graz, Austria, is strongest on signing workflow, where scores run 7 to 8: sequential, parallel and conditional signing with approval and escalation logic, bulk sends to 10,000 contacts and 100 documents per click, and unlimited external signers without extra licences are all evidenced. Signature levels score 6 to 7, with EES, FES and QES labelled per plan — Now carries simple and advanced, Business adds qualified — and A-Trust, D-Trust and Swisscom named as certified trust centres. Pricing transparency is the weakest result, min 1 and max 1: the plan pages show tiers and contents but no price figure, so no cost is computable from public pages. Integration and API spans 4 to 6, its connector list concrete but its REST API story resting on one sentence. Sovereignty is the genuine split, 3 to 6: judges crediting the stated EU/CH high-security datacentre and the on-premises option sit high, while those weighing unknown ownership, subprocessors and certifications sit low. Evidence and retention is uniform at 4.
Speaks for it
- Covers sequential, parallel and conditional signing with approval and escalation logic
- Bulk sends reach up to 10,000 contacts with up to 100 documents per click
- Unlimited external signers carry no extra licence
- Labels EES, FES and QES per plan, with A-Trust, D-Trust and Swisscom as certified trust centres under eIDAS and ZertES
- Names enterprise connectors across Microsoft 365, Teams, SAP, Salesforce, OpenText and Doxis, plus Adobe, Office and Explorer plug-ins and an MCP-based AI connector
Held against it
- No plan price, per-signature fee, identification charge, API price, contract term or notice period appears on the captured plan pages
- We found no public information on long-term validation, a validation report or tool, or export of documents together with their evidence
- We found no public information on API documentation, webhooks, a sandbox, SDKs or rate limits, so the REST API story rests on one sentence
- Ownership, data residency and subprocessor exposure remain unconfirmed on the vendor's public pages, and we found no public information on certifications such as ISO 27001
- We found no public information on signer languages or signer accessibility
Best for
- You send contracts at volume, where bulk sends to up to 10,000 contacts and 100 documents per click and unlimited external signers without extra licences match your scale
- You need qualified electronic signatures under eIDAS and ZertES, with identification issued on demand inside the signing flow and reusable for five years
- Your contracts live in SAP, Salesforce, OpenText or Doxis, and the named out-of-the-box connectors plus the MCP-based AI connector fit your landscape
- You want a cloud instance in an EU/CH high-security datacentre or deployment on premises in your own environment
Avoid if
- Your disputes will land years later and you need documented long-term validation, a validation report and evidence export before purchase
- Your development team needs published API documentation, webhooks and a sandbox to evaluate before committing
- Your procurement must document ownership, subprocessor locations and certifications such as ISO 27001 before any contract
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| eIDAS levels & trust services | 3.5 of 5 |
| Signer identification | 3 of 5 |
| Signing workflow & signer experience | 3.5 of 5 |
| Evidence, validation & retention | 2 of 5 |
| Integrations & API | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 0.5 of 5 |
eIDAS levels & trust services
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Which signature levels the platform offers — simple, advanced, qualified, and qualified seals — through which qualified trust service provider on the EU Trust List, for which countries and legal regimes (eIDAS, ZertES), and on which plans.
0 — No signature level named; the platform calls its signature "legally binding" without saying which kind it is.
3 — Simple signatures by default with "advanced" or "qualified" mentioned as available, but no trust service provider named and no statement on which plan or country offers which level.
5 — SES, AdES and QES offered and labelled in the product, the qualified trust service provider named, and which documents need which level explained for at least Germany or the EU.
8 — Every level documented with the plans and countries it is available in, the QTSP's entry on the EU Trust List linked, QES under eIDAS (and ZertES where relevant) stated, qualified electronic seals for company documents, and the signature level printed in the signed document and audit trail.
10 — Levels are an explicit product decision: the provider is or contracts a named QTSP with its conformity assessment published, level selection per document type or template, remote QES without a separate account, EUDI wallet support stated with a date, and the legal effect per level documented for the main EU markets.
The Legal Counsel
Simple, advanced and qualified signatures are labelled per plan — the Now plan carries simple and advanced signatures, Business adds qualified — with A-Trust, D-Trust and Swisscom named as certified trust centres for eIDAS and ZertES, qualified seals available through eStamp, and a signature protocol that records signature quality, timestamp and hash, which is what I want to see when a signed contract is disputed years later. We found no public information linking the trust centres to their EU Trust List entries, on which countries offer which level, or on published conformity assessments, so I stop short of the top of this band. 2 6 7 9
The HR Operations Lead
The platform labels simple, advanced and qualified signatures under both eIDAS and ZertES, names A-Trust, D-Trust and Swisscom as its certified trust centres, and the plan pages show which levels each plan carries (Now with simple and advanced, Business adding qualified), with qualified or self-signed company seals via eStamp and the signature quality recorded in the signing protocol. For my fixed-term contracts that is the labelling I need, though we found no public information on EU Trust List entries, on which country offers which level, or on guidance for which document requires which level. 2 9 7 5
The Revenue Operations Lead
All three levels are labelled and mapped to plans — the entry plan covers simple and advanced, the business plan adds unlimited qualified per document — with A-Trust, D-Trust and Swisscom named as certified trust centres under both eIDAS and ZertES, qualified seals via the stamp module, and the signature quality printed in the completion protocol. I found no public link to the trust providers' EU Trust List entries and no country-by-country statement of where each level applies, so the qualified chain per market cannot be fully verified. 2 6 7 9
The Integration Engineer
Simple, advanced and qualified signatures are labelled in the product with the plan split stated — Now tops out at simple and advanced, Business adds qualified — and A-Trust, D-Trust and Swisscom are named as certified trust centers under both eIDAS and ZertES, with qualified seals via eStamp and the signature quality recorded in the signature protocol. We found no public link to the trust providers' EU Trust List entries and no country-by-country statement of which level is available where, which holds this below the top band. 2 6 9
The Data Protection Officer
Simple, advanced and qualified signatures are labelled per plan, with A-Trust, D-Trust and Swisscom named as certified trust centers under eIDAS and ZertES, qualified seals via eStamp, and the signature protocol recording signature quality alongside timestamp and hash. We found no public information on which countries each level is available in, and the EU Trust List entries of the named trust centers are not linked, so the trust chain cannot be verified from the captured pages. 2 9 6
The Skeptic
All three levels are labelled with their own names (EES, FES, QES), the qualified trust services come from centers the vendor does not operate itself — A-Trust, D-Trust and Swisscom — QES is stated under both eIDAS and ZertES, qualified seals exist via eStamp, and the audit trail records signature quality. What holds this back: we found no public information linking the trust centers to their EU Trust List entries, no guidance on which document type demands which level, and no country-by-level statement — the plan pages simply show QES appearing from the Business tier upward. 2 7 9 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 — 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
Identification methods are named and split between automated and human — AI-based auto-identification from an ID scan and selfie video, authentication via the German ID card's NFC chip, and an in-person registration officer — with Nect and A-Trust named for the wallet and signature apps and a five-year identity that can be reused for later signatures. We found no public information on which countries' ID documents auto-identification accepts, on retention or deletion specific to identification data beyond the general statutory retention statement, and we found no public information placing the identification providers on a published subprocessor list. 3 6 7
The HR Operations Lead
Auto-identification is AI-based with an ID scan and a selfie video in under ten minutes — exactly the phone flow I want from a new hire — with the German ID card's NFC chip as a second route and trained in-house registration officers for on-site issuance, and the issued identity is reusable for five years of signing. The identification provider (Nect wallet with A-Trust) is named, but we found no public information on which countries' ID documents the auto-identification accepts, on video or bank identification alternatives, or on an identification-data subprocessor listing. 6 7 3
The Revenue Operations Lead
Methods are named concretely — AI auto-ident with ID scan and selfie video in under ten minutes, German ID card NFC authentication, in-person registration officers, and Nect Wallet with the A-Trust signature app — with automated and in-person routes clearly separated and the identity reusable for five years, issued on demand inside the signing process. I found no public information on which ID documents each method accepts beyond the German ID card, retention rules specific to identification data, or a subprocessor list naming the identification providers. 6 7
The Integration Engineer
Methods are named and provider-attributed — AI auto-identification from an ID scan plus selfie video in under ten minutes, the German ID card's NFC chip, and an in-person registration officer — with A-Trust as the certified provider, a Nect wallet app for authentication, and a five-year reusable identity issued on demand inside the signing flow. We found no public information mapping methods to countries or signature levels, and identification-data retention is covered only by the general privacy policy with no subprocessor list. 3 6 7
The Data Protection Officer
Identification methods are named — AI-based Auto-Ident with ID scan and selfie video in under ten minutes, German nPA NFC authentication, and in-person registration officers — with Nect and A-Trust appearing in the chain and the five-year reusable identity explained. We found no public information on which countries' ID documents Auto-Ident accepts, on retention or deletion of the ID scans and selfie videos, or on any subprocessor list placing the identification provider in the processing chain, which is exactly what I need before sending signers to a provider they never chose. 6 7 3
The Skeptic
Methods are named concretely — AI-based Auto-Ident with ID document scan and selfie video in under ten minutes, the German ID card via NFC, and an in-person Registration Officer — with Nect Wallet and A-Trust named in the chain, the identity valid five years for further signatures, and issuance on demand inside the signing flow. We found no public information on which countries' ID documents Auto-Ident accepts, on retention or deletion specific to identification data, or on the identification provider appearing in a subprocessor list. 3 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
The Workflow Builder covers sequential, parallel and conditional signing with approval and escalation logic, bulk sends to up to 10,000 contacts and 100 documents per click, deputy arrangements, role-based permissions, shared templates and drag-and-drop field placement, plus on-site signing via QR code and branding of the signer interface. We found no public information on signer languages or on signer accessibility, which holds me back from the top of this band. 2 8 9
The HR Operations Lead
Templates with drag-and-drop fields, sequential, parallel and conditional signing with approval and escalation logic, a deputy arrangement, team-shared templates and role permissions are all shown, and bulk sending reaches up to 10,000 contacts with up to 100 documents per click — far beyond my yearly contract volume. On-site signing via QR code and signature confirmation by Face ID point to a phone-capable signer flow, but we found no public information on automatic reminders or expiry, on signer languages, or on signer accessibility. 2 8 9
The Revenue Operations Lead
This is where turnaround gets help: drag-and-drop field placement, templates shared across the team, sequential, parallel and conditional signing with approval and escalation logic, bulk sends to 10,000 contacts with 100 documents per click, deputy rules, real-time status updates, on-site QR signing, and external signers at no extra licence. I found no public information on automatic reminders chasing signers, on whether signers complete without creating an account, or on signer languages and accessibility. 2 8 9 11
The Integration Engineer
The Workflow Builder covers sequential, parallel and conditional signing with approval and escalation logic, roles and signatory groups, team-shareable templates with optional or mandatory form fields, bulk sending to 10,000 contacts and 100 documents per click, plus a deputy arrangement, on-site signing by QR code and branded signature visualization. Signer languages and signer accessibility are where the captured pages go quiet — we found no public information on either. 2 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
Team-shared templates, drag-and-drop signature fields, sequential, parallel and conditional routing with approval and escalation logic, bulk sends to 10,000 contacts, a deputy arrangement, QR on-site signing, real-time status and interface branding are all evidenced. We found no public information on signer languages or signer accessibility, which the stronger end of this criterion expects. 8 9 2
The Skeptic
Sequential, parallel and conditional signing with approval and escalation logic, roles with tailored permissions and signatory groups, shareable templates, drag-and-drop field placement, a deputy rule for substitution, bulk sends to 10,000 contacts and 100 documents per click, QR-code on-site signing, real-time status updates and unlimited external signers without extra licences — the workflow machinery is the best-evidenced part of this product. We found no public information on signer languages or on accessibility for signers, which is what separates it from the top of the scale. 2 8 9
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
A signature protocol records the signatories, timestamp, signature quality and hash value, and workflows can be configured with audit trails and documentation for eIDAS and ZertES compliance; retention follows the business relationship plus statutory duties under UGB and BAO, with server logfiles kept ten days. We found no public information on the timestamp's source or qualification, on long-term validation such as PAdES-LTV, on a validation tool or report, on configurable retention or deletion, or on export of documents together with their evidence. 2 3 8 9
The HR Operations Lead
A signing protocol listing signatories, timestamps, signature quality and a hash value is published, and the privacy policy cites statutory retention under Austrian commercial and tax law with ten-day server log deletion. Beyond that we found no public information on long-term validation, on a validation tool or report, on download or export of documents with their evidence, or on a concrete retention period for signed documents — which matters when a fixed-term contract is disputed years later. 2 9 3
The Revenue Operations Lead
A signature protocol is offered listing signers, timestamp, signature quality and hash value, and the privacy policy states retention for the business relationship plus statutory periods, with ten-day server log deletion. I found no public information on long-term validation such as PAdES-LTV, the provenance of qualified timestamps, a validation report, configurable retention, or bulk export of documents together with their evidence. 2 3 9
The Integration Engineer
The signature protocol lists signatories, timestamps, signature quality and a hash value, which is more content than a bare completion certificate, and retention is anchored in statutory duties. We found no public information on long-term validation, a validation report or tool, the timestamp source, download or export of signed documents with evidence intact, or a stated retention period for signed documents. 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
A signature protocol exists listing signatories, timestamps, signature quality and hash values, and the privacy policy cites statutory retention under Austrian commercial and tax law plus ten-day server logfiles. We found no public information on qualified timestamps or long-term validation, on whether IP addresses and authentication method enter the evidence, or on a concrete retention period for signed documents and their audit trail, so what proves a signature in five years stays vague. 2 3
The Skeptic
The signature protocol records signatories, timestamp, signature quality and a hash value, and the privacy policy grounds retention in Austrian statutory duties (UGB, BAO) — more than a bare completion certificate, though no concrete retention period is stated. We found no public information on long-term validation, the timestamp provider, a validation tool or report, configurable retention or automatic deletion, or export of documents together with their evidence; IP address and authentication method are not among the listed protocol contents either. 2 3
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 exposes the core functions including all modules independently of the user interface, and out-of-the-box connectors are named for Microsoft 365, Microsoft Teams, SAP, Salesforce, OpenText and Doxis, with Adobe, Office and Explorer plug-ins and an AI connector on the open MCP standard. We found no public information on webhooks, a sandbox, published API documentation, SDKs or rate limits, so I cannot treat the interface as a fully documented product surface. 2 9 10 11
The HR Operations Lead
Named out-of-the-box connectors cover Microsoft 365 and Teams, SAP, Salesforce, Doxis and OpenText, plus Office, Adobe and Windows Explorer plugins and an MCP-based AI connector, with a REST API whose scope is stated to cover all modules independent of the user interface. We found no public information on API documentation, webhooks, a sandbox, SDKs or rate limits, so I cannot confirm my HR systems team could build against it before committing. 9 11 10 2
The Revenue Operations Lead
Signing from the systems where contracts are made is real: a REST API exposing core functionality across all modules independently of the interface, named connectors for Microsoft 365, Teams, Salesforce, SAP, OpenText and Doxis, an Adobe plugin, and an open MCP connector for AI assistants that can start processes and query status. I found no public information on webhooks, a sandbox, SDKs, API versioning or published rate limits, so the connector breadth is not matched by developer documentation. 2 9 10 11
The Integration Engineer
A REST API is stated to expose the core functionalities including all modules independently of the web interface, and the connector set is genuinely enterprise-grade — Microsoft 365 and Teams, SAP, Salesforce, Doxis and OpenText — plus Office, Explorer and Adobe plugins and an MCP-based AI connector. As the one who has to embed this in our portal and archive to the DMS, we found no public information on webhooks, a sandbox, API documentation with versioning and rate limits, SDKs, or embedded signing flows, and the scope of each named connector is not described. 2 9 11
The Data Protection Officer
A REST API covering all modules independently of the user interface is stated, and the connector list is unusually concrete — Microsoft 365 and Teams, SAP, Salesforce, OpenText, Doxis, Adobe, plus an MCP-based AI connector. We found no public information on API documentation with webhooks or a sandbox, on embedded signing, SDKs, rate limits or a status page, so the API's real depth cannot be judged before purchase. 10 11 9 2
The Skeptic
Named connectors go deep into enterprise territory — Microsoft 365 and Teams, SAP, Salesforce, Doxis, OpenText, plus Adobe, Office and Explorer plug-ins and an MCP-based AI connector — and a REST API said to expose all modules independently of the user interface. But we found no public information on the API documentation itself, webhooks, a sandbox, SDKs or rate limits, so the entire API story rests on a single sentence while the connector story is well evidenced. 2 9 11
European sovereignty
panel opinion
panel disagrees
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 pricing page states an EU/CH high-security data centre for the cloud plans and a customer's own environment on-premises, the trust centres named are European, and second-level support sits in Graz. We found no public information confirming the contracting entity's jurisdiction on the captured pages, on ownership, on a subprocessor list with locations, or on published certifications such as ISO 27001, so the sovereign chain rests on marketing statements rather than documented detail. 2 4 5
The HR Operations Lead
The captured pages state EU/CH high-security data centres, a European private cloud, an on-premises option and A-Trust, D-Trust and Swisscom as trust centres, with second-level support in Graz and a "100 % European" claim. We found no public information confirming the contracting entity's jurisdiction or ownership, on a subprocessor list, or on certifications such as ISO 27001 or ETSI conformity, so the picture is asserted rather than evidenced end to end. 2 11 5 4
The Revenue Operations Lead
The vendor states an Austrian entity with second-level support run from Graz, hosting in an EU/CH high-security data centre with an on-premises option, a European private cloud, and A-Trust, D-Trust and Swisscom as trust centres under a "100% European" positioning. I found no public information on ownership, on subprocessors and their locations, or on certifications such as ISO 27001, and residency beyond the EU/CH statement is otherwise unconfirmed on the captured pages. 2 4 5 11
The Integration Engineer
The legal notice places the company in Graz, Austria, cloud instances run in EU/CH high-security data centres with an on-premises option, and the trust chain runs through A-Trust, D-Trust and Swisscom under a stated one-hundred-percent-European claim. Ownership is not stated in the captured pages, and we found no public subprocessor list, no named data centres, and no certifications such as ISO 27001 or ETSI conformity. 2 4 5
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages assert integrated data sovereignty, EU/CH high-security data centres with an on-premises option, and a Graz-based support organisation, but the CH leaves Swiss processing open and marketing slogans are not evidence. We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction or ownership, and no subprocessor list naming who hosts, identifies or timestamps signer data — the trust chain behind the hundred percent European claim is invisible. 2 4 5
The Skeptic
Cloud instances sit in an EU/CH high-security datacentre with an on-premises option, the privacy policy is built on Austrian statutes, second-level support works from Graz, and the marketing says one hundred percent European — but we found no public information confirming the contracting entity's registration, on ownership, on certifications such as ISO 27001, on a data processing agreement, or on any subprocessor, and the trust-center list includes a Swiss provider. The claim of integrated data sovereignty is not matched by published ownership or processing-chain detail. 2 3 4 5
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the cost of their signing volume from public pages alone — plan prices, envelope or document limits, the per-signature price of AdES and QES, identification fees, API pricing and overage.
0 — No public prices at all; every plan is a sales conversation.
3 — Plan prices published, but envelope limits, QES and identification fees are unstated — the cost of a qualified signature is unknowable.
5 — Plans with envelope or document limits priced, but at least one commonly incurred cost (per-QES fee, video ident, API access, overage) is missing or "on request".
8 — Every plan and limit priced publicly, AdES and QES priced per signature, identification fees and overage stated, API pricing published, and contract term and notice period given.
10 — Complete cost computability: the cost of a given monthly volume per signature level derivable from public pages, volume tiers published, and every add-on and price-change term on a public page.
The Legal Counsel
The pricing page distinguishes a Now plan with unlimited simple and advanced signatures per document from a Business plan adding qualified signatures, and offers seals on request, so a buyer can see which plan carries which signature level. We found no public information on any plan price, per-signature fee for qualified signatures, identification fee, API pricing, contract term or notice period — the cost of a qualified signature is not computable from the captured pages. 2
The HR Operations Lead
No prices appear anywhere in the captured material: the plan comparison shows the tiers and what each includes — Now with simple and advanced signatures per document, Business adding qualified, seals on request — but no plan price, per-signature fee, identification charge, contract term or notice period is published. I cannot know what a qualified signature will cost before the contract goes out, and for my yearly volume that is the one number I need up front. 2
The Revenue Operations Lead
The pricing page publishes the plan ladder and what each tier includes — simple and advanced unlimited on the entry plan, qualified added on the business plan, seals available on request — but no price figures appear on the captured pages. A buyer can therefore see which plan carries qualified signatures but cannot compute the monthly cost or the price of a qualified signature or an identification from public pages. 2
The Integration Engineer
The public pricing page distinguishes Now, Business and Enterprise tiers and states what each includes — unlimited simple and advanced signatures on Now, qualified added on Business — but no price figure, envelope limit, identification fee, API price or contract term appears in the captured pages, so a buyer cannot compute the cost of any signing volume. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The pricing page distinguishes the plans by features — unlimited signature levels per document, external signers without extra licence, seals "auf Anfrage" — but we found no public information on any plan price, per-signature fee for qualified signatures, identification fee or API pricing. The cost of any signing volume is therefore a sales conversation, not a computation. 2
The Skeptic
The plan page publishes tiers and what each contains — EES and FES unlimited per document on Now, QES added on Business, seals on request — but we found no public information on any price: no plan price, no per-signature QES or identification fee, no priced envelope or licence limits, no API pricing, no overage and no contract term or notice period. A buyer cannot compute a single euro of cost from public pages; every figure is a sales conversation. 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about MOXIS
Is MOXIS European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies MOXIS as EU-Made.
Where does MOXIS store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does MOXIS have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to MOXIS?
As of 15 Oct 2026, the panel rates Penneo (2.5/5), Youtrust (Yousign) (2.5/5) and Scrive (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: MOXIS 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 — Legal entity, Data residency, Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 11 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
- 5 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 4 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
- 3 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
- 1 data fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 hosting 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 pricing 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 (11)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.moxis.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.moxis.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.moxis.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Legal notice www.moxis.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Terms of service www.moxis.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Signer identification — found from sitemap www.moxis.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Signer identification — found from sitemap www.moxis.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Signing workflow & signer experience — found from sitemap www.moxis.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Signing workflow & signer experience — found from sitemap www.moxis.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.moxis.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.moxis.co Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →