E-Signature
Signicat Sign
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Signicat AS · www.signicat.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.
Signicat Sign at a glance
- Vendor
- Signicat AS
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Default not stated; pages mention Europe source, captured 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Signicat Sign 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Signicat Sign is an e-signature product from Signicat AS of Trondheim, Norway; the vendor names itself an eIDAS-certified qualified trust service provider. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Signicat Sign is an e-signature product from Signicat AS of Trondheim, Norway; the vendor names itself an eIDAS-certified qualified trust service provider. Identity verification is the strongest area, with over 240 identity methods: 35 European eIDs such as MitID, BankID and itsme, all EU Digital Identity Wallets, NFC chip reading and video identification. Evidence and retention rests on PAdES packaging, timestamped authentication events and retention configurable from 1 month to 50 years; signing workflow covers templates with conditional logic and parallel multi-signer signing. Signature levels sit at a flat 4: only the qualified level (single-use or four-year certificates) is labelled, with no public information on which plan or country offers which level. Integration and API scores span 4-6 — Sign API v2 has public documentation, sandbox and SDKs; we found no public information on named connectors. Sovereignty scores 3-4: Signicat AS is a Norwegian (EEA, not EU) entity, and the captured pages give different figures for storage — Europe on one, the EU on the other. Pricing transparency scores 0-1; only a free trial and test account are public.
Speaks for it
- Over 240 identity methods are named, from 35 European eIDs such as MitID, BankID and itsme to all EU Digital Identity Wallets, NFC chip reading and video identification, with the vendor performing verification itself.
- Retention is configurable from 1 month to 50 years, with a documented retention and deletion lifecycle guide.
- Qualified signatures are offered as single-use or four-year certificates by a vendor that names itself the eIDAS-certified qualified trust service provider.
- Sign API v2 has public OpenAPI reference documentation, webhooks, sandbox environments, SDKs and a free developer test account.
- Signed documents are packaged as PAdES containers, with audit trails and automatic timestamping of authentication events stored for audits and dispute resolution.
Held against it
- Only the qualified signature level is labelled; we found no public information on which plan or country offers which level.
- We found no public information on connectors for Microsoft 365, Google Workspace or any CRM, HR, DMS or ERP system, nor on published API rate limits.
- We found no public information on ownership, a subprocessor list or certifications such as ISO 27001, and corporate email is processed through Microsoft Exchange cloud.
- The audit trail's contents are not spelled out; we found no public information on long-term validation, a named timestamp provider or bulk export of documents with their evidence.
- We found no public information on plan prices, per-signature fees, identification fees or API pricing; the public offers are a free eID and wallets trial and a free developer test account.
Best for
- You sign with people across the Nordics, DACH or Benelux who hold national eIDs such as BankID, MitID or itsme, or EU wallets.
- You need qualified electronic signatures with retention you can set from 1 month to 50 years for contracts that may be disputed years later.
- Your developers will drive signing through a documented REST API with a sandbox and SDKs rather than a standalone portal.
- You need each signer's identity verified in the same flow, using NFC chip reading or video identification.
Avoid if
- You need to know the cost of your signing volume before talking to sales — the public pages show only a free eID and wallets trial, a free developer test account and expert contact.
- You must route documents by labelled simple, advanced and qualified levels per plan and country — the captured pages label only the qualified level.
- You expect to send documents from inside Microsoft 365, Google Workspace or your CRM without developers — the documented integration paths are OpenID Connect, SAML 2.0 and REST.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| eIDAS levels & trust services | 2 of 5 |
| Signer identification | 3 of 5 |
| Signing workflow & signer experience | 3 of 5 |
| Evidence, validation & retention | 3 of 5 |
| Integrations & API | 2.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2 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 vendor states it is itself an eIDAS-certified qualified trust service provider, spells out qualified certificate types (single-use or valid four years), pairs qualified signatures with biometric video identification, and offers merchant sealing through the API. But the captured pages label only the qualified level: simple and advanced are never named, no plan or country carries a stated level, the trust-list entry is not linked, and no Swiss regime appears, so I cannot yet route contract types by legal effect. 4 6 11 1
The HR Operations Lead
Signicat states it is itself an eIDAS-certified qualified trust service provider offering qualified signatures as single-use or four-year certificates, with XAdES and PAdES output and automatic sealing for company documents, so the qualified end of my fixed-term contracts is spoken for. We found no public information on which plans or countries carry which signature level, a link to the provider's EU Trust List entry, or guidance on which level an employment contract in Germany or elsewhere needs. 4 6 11
The Revenue Operations Lead
Qualified signatures are the headline: the vendor states it is itself an eIDAS-certified qualified trust service provider, sells single-use and four-year qualified certificates, and packages results as PAdES or XAdES across authentication-based and PKI signing flows. But the captured pages never label simple or advanced signatures as such, and we found no public information on which plan or country offers which level, or on qualified seals — which is where cross-border deals stall. 4 5 11
The Integration Engineer
Qualified signatures are unambiguous: Signicat names itself an eIDAS-certified qualified trust service provider, pairs QES with AI-powered biometric video identification, and offers single-use or four-year qualified certificates. But the simple/advanced/qualified ladder is not presented as a labelled set in the product — flows are named authentication-based and PKI, and sealing is described without a qualified-seal statement — and we found no public information on which plan or country offers which level, on the EU Trust List entry, or on ZertES. 4 6 11
The Data Protection Officer
The vendor names itself as the certified eIDAS qualified trust service provider, offers qualified signatures with single-use or four-year certificates, and explains EU-wide validity through the eIDAS interoperability principle, with XAdES and PAdES signature types in the API. We found no public information labelling simple or advanced signature levels in the product, on which plan or country offers which level, or on qualified electronic seals or the provider's Trust List entry. 4 6 11
The Skeptic
Qualified signatures are a real product with their own page — single-use or four-year certificates, video ident for QES, and the vendor naming itself as the eIDAS certified QTSP — but simple and advanced signatures are never labelled as levels, only as authentication-based and PKI signing flows. We found no public information on which plan or country delivers which level, or which documents need which level, so 'as legally binding as wet ink' does the work a level label should do. 4 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
Methods are named by product — video identification, NFC chip reading of e-passports and ID cards, national eIDs such as MitID, BankID, FTN, itsme, plus SMS and email codes — with covered regions (Nordics, DACH, Benelux and beyond), reuse of onboarding credentials via ReuseID, and EU wallet support claimed. We found no public information mapping each method to a signature level per country, on deletion of ID data beyond multi-year AML archival, or on identification providers in a subprocessor list. 5 6 4 11
The HR Operations Lead
For recruitment this is strong: over 240 identity methods and 35 European eIDs including BankID, MitID and itsme, EUDI wallet support, NFC chip reading of passports, ID cards and residence permits, and AI video identification for applicants whose documents carry no chip — the IDs new hires actually hold, with coverage stated for the Nordics, DACH and Benelux. Verified ID documents are stated to be archived for years under AML rules with redaction safeguards and ReuseID explains reuse of an identification, though we found no public information on deletion of ID data or a subprocessor list for the identification chain. 1 5 6 11
The Revenue Operations Lead
Over 240 identity methods behind one API, named eIDs per country such as MitID, BankID, itsme and FTN, 35 European eIDs plus all EU wallets, NFC chip reads, biometric video with optional human checks, and reuse of an onboarding identity later via ReuseID. Verified ID copies are archived for years under AML rules with redaction and watermarking, though we found no public information on deletion timelines for identification data or per-method completion and failure guidance. 1 4 5 6 11
The Integration Engineer
Methods are named in abundance — 35 European eIDs from MitID, BankID and itsme to Freja, FTN and iDIN plus SMS and email one-time codes, with video identification and NFC chip reading for qualified signing — across Nordics, DACH and Benelux, with Signicat performing the verification itself. We found no public information on a per-level and per-country mapping, a subprocessor list, or deletion commitments for ID data; retention appears only as years of AML-driven archiving with redaction and watermarking. 1 5 6 11
The Data Protection Officer
Methods are named in abundance — MitID, BankID, itsme, Freja, iDIN, SMS and email one-time passwords, ReadID chip reading of passports and ID cards, and VideoID with liveness and optional human checks — across 35 European eIDs and the EU wallets, with the vendor itself as the identification provider and ReuseID explaining reuse of an onboarding credential. Verified ID documents are kept "for years in line with AML regulations" with redaction and watermarking, but we found no public information on a defined retention or deletion period for ID data, on failure or completion rates per method, or on a signer-facing privacy notice. 5 6 11 2
The Skeptic
Identification is the best-documented capability here: MitID, BankID, itsme, Freja, iDIN, video ident and NFC chip reading are all named, the vendor operates them itself, and ID document types and region-level country coverage are stated. We found no public information on which method supports which signature level, on deletion of ID data after verification (only archival 'for years per AML'), or on any subprocessor list. 5 6 11
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
Workflow templates carry conditional logic and service integrations, multi-signer flows run in parallel or in any order, signers can forward a session to a nominated substitute, deadlines default to thirty days, notifications go out by email and SMS, and rejection with a stated reason is supported; an accessibility statement exists, though self-evaluated and dated 2021. We found no public information on bulk sending, automatic reminders, team or approval workflows, a branded signer experience, or signer languages. 7 11 8
The HR Operations Lead
Signicat Mint supplies pre-built templates with conditional logic and a visual builder, an electronic-signing template that pre-fills contracts and collects signatures, parallel multi-signer signing, signature forwarding, rejection with a stated reason, deadlines up to 45 days, email/SMS notifications, and a published accessibility approach for the signer experience. For my two hundred contracts a year, we found no public information on bulk sending from templates, automatic reminders, sequential signing order with roles, or signer languages. 7 8 11
The Revenue Operations Lead
Mint templates are pre-built blueprints with conditional logic and PDF hydration — sales could not easily break them — and signers authenticate with an eID or an SMS or email code, no account, any device, which is the signer experience I want; parallel signing, a 30-day default deadline, rejection with a reason and forwarding to a nominated signer are all documented. But we found no public information on sequential signing order, automatic reminders, bulk sending or branded signer pages, and that is where quotes go to die. 4 7 8 11
The Integration Engineer
Mint templates with conditional logic, PDF hydration and web-form steps, parallel multi-signer sessions, forwarding to a nominated signer, rejection with a stated reason, email/SMS notifications and configurable deadlines up to 45 days give a solid working core. We found no public information on bulk sending, automatic reminders, team approval workflows, signer languages or account-free mobile signing, and the accessibility statement rests on self-evaluation dated December 2021. 7 11 8 4
The Data Protection Officer
Templates with conditional logic and a visual builder, parallel and any-order multi-signer signing, signature forwarding to a nominated signer, rejection with a stated reason, default 30-day deadlines extendable to 45, and email and SMS notifications cover the core workflow, and an accessibility statement with WAI-ARIA and a feedback channel addresses signer accessibility. We found no public information on bulk sending, automatic reminders, team or approval workflows, branded signer pages, or signer languages, and the accessibility statement is a self-evaluation dated December 2021. 7 11 8
The Skeptic
Templates with conditional logic in a visual builder, parallel and any-order multi-signer signing, deadlines up to 45 days, rejection with a stated reason and end-user signature forwarding are all documented, and a self-evaluated accessibility statement exists. We found no public information on sequential signing order, automatic reminders, bulk sending, a branded signer experience or signer languages. 7 11 8
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
Retention is unusually clear — customisable from one month to fifty years in an archive stated to hold all data in the EU — with audit trails, automatic timestamping of authentication events in an Authentication Vault positioned for audits and dispute resolution, and PAdES packaging of the signed result; a retention and deletion lifecycle guide is referenced. But we found no public information on long-term validation, qualified timestamps from a named provider, validation reports, or bulk export of documents with their evidence, which is what I would need before relying on a signature in an eight-year dispute. 10 9 5 11 2
The HR Operations Lead
Signed documents are packaged as a PAdES container, audit trails track user activity, authentication events get automatic timestamping and storage for audits and dispute resolution, retention is configurable from one month to fifty years with a documented retention and deletion lifecycle guide, and the archive is stated to hold data in the EU — the evidence story I need if a fixed-term contract is challenged years later. We found no public information on long-term validation of signatures, a named qualified timestamp provider, a validation report, or bulk export of documents together with their evidence. 5 9 10 11
The Revenue Operations Lead
Signatures land as PAdES containers, authentication events are timestamped automatically in a vault for audits and dispute resolution, and archival retention is configurable from one month to fifty years in EU storage with a documented retention and deletion lifecycle. The audit trail exists but its contents are not spelled out, and we found no public information on long-term validation, a validation report, or bulk export of documents together with their evidence. 5 9 10 11
The Integration Engineer
Retention is public and configurable from 1 month to 50 years in the archive, the integration guide documents PAdES packaging of the signed PDF, documents are retrievable through a user interface, and the platform describes automatic timestamping of authentication events and audit trails for audits and disputes. We found no public information on the audit trail's contents, the timestamp provider, long-term validation, or a validation tool or report — and for my archive requirement, none on exporting signed documents to a customer DMS together with their evidence. 10 11 5 9
The Data Protection Officer
PAdES packaging, automatic timestamping of authentication events in a vault, an archive with configurable retention from 1 month to 50 years, instant retrieval, and a referenced document retention and deletion lifecycle guide give a solid evidence base. We found no public information on the audit trail's contents — including whether signer IP addresses and authentication method are recorded, and for how long — nor on long-term validation, a qualified timestamp provider, a validation report, or export of documents together with their evidence. 10 11 5 2
The Skeptic
Retention is unusually well stated — customisable from 1 month to 50 years with a deletion lifecycle guide — and signatures are packaged as PAdES with audit trails and automatic timestamping of authentication events. We found no public information on long-term validation, the timestamp source and whether it is qualified, the audit trail's contents, or bulk export of documents together with their evidence. 10 11 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
Sign API version 2 is publicly documented with an OpenAPI reference, webhooks managed in a dashboard, sandbox environments, SDKs and a free test account, and the guide shows signing embedded in the customer's own application with the end-user returning there after signing. We found no public information on named connectors for Microsoft 365, CRM, HR, DMS or ERP systems, on published rate limits, or on a status page and deprecation policy. 11 1 5
The HR Operations Lead
The Sign API is publicly documented with an OpenAPI reference and sample requests, webhooks for completed and failed packages, OpenID Connect, SAML and REST options, SDKs, sandbox environments and a free developer test account. We found no public information on connectors for Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, a CRM or an HR system where employment contracts originate, nor on embedded signing or published rate limits. 1 5 11
The Revenue Operations Lead
The API story is real: a versioned Sign API with an OpenAPI reference, an integration guide with working code, webhooks for completed and failed packaging, SDKs, a sandbox and a free developer test account. But we found no public information on a single named connector — nothing for Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, or any CRM, HR or DMS system — so signing from inside our CRM means building it ourselves. 1 5 7 11
The Integration Engineer
Sign API v2 delivers the bones I look for: a public OpenAPI reference with sample requests and responses, webhooks for packaging completed and failed managed in the dashboard, sandbox and free test accounts, SDKs, and every flow — authentication-based signing, PKI signing, sealing — driven through the API with XAdES and PAdES output types. What holds it back is that we found no public information on named connectors for Microsoft 365, CRM, HR or DMS systems, on embedded signing in the customer's own application, or on published rate limits or a deprecation policy. 11 1 5 7
The Data Protection Officer
Sign API v2 is publicly documented with an OpenAPI reference, sample requests and responses, packaging webhooks, SDKs, sandbox environments and a free test account, and the platform also integrates via OpenID Connect and SAML 2.0. We found no public information on connectors for Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, CRM, HR, DMS or ERP systems, on embedded signing in the customer's own application, or on API rate limits and versioning policy. 11 1 5
The Skeptic
Sign API v2 has public OpenAPI reference documentation, webhooks, a sandbox, SDKs and a free test account, with OIDC and SAML alongside the REST API — a real developer surface, versioned to v2. We found no public information on connectors for Microsoft 365, Google Workspace or any named CRM, HR, DMS or ERP system, on embedded signing, or on published rate limits. 11 5 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity, the trust service provider and their owners are, where documents, audit trails and ID data are stored and processed, and who the subprocessors are. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline.
0 — Non-EU contracting entity, no statement on where documents and signer data are stored, and subprocessors unnamed.
3 — An EU entity contracts, but documents or signer data are processed outside the EU by default without an explained safeguard, or the subprocessor list is absent.
5 — EU contracting entity and EU data storage stated, with a DPA, but the hosting, identification or trust service chain is non-EU-controlled without a stated safeguard.
8 — EU entity, documents, audit trails and ID data stored in named EU data centres, an EU qualified trust service provider, subprocessor list with locations published, and certifications (ISO 27001, ETSI conformity) published.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, EU entity and EU QTSP, every processing location and subprocessor European, customer-selectable data residency, and certifications with their scope published.
The Legal Counsel
The contracting entity is Signicat AS, registered in Norway — an EEA rather than EU seat — and captured pages state all data is stored and processed in Europe in compliance with GDPR, with the accessibility statement confirming Norwegian enforcement of the European Accessibility Act. Ownership is not evidenced, we found no public information on a subprocessor list or certifications such as ISO 27001 for the signing service, and website marketing runs through third-party tools including Google Analytics, HubSpot and Salesforce. 2 6 10 8
The HR Operations Lead
The contracting entity is Signicat AS of Trondheim, Norway, archive data is stated to be stored and processed in the EU under GDPR, and the qualified trust service is Signicat itself, which keeps most of the visible chain European. We found no public information on the ownership behind the company, named data-centre locations, a subprocessor list with locations, or certifications such as ISO 27001, so I cannot verify the full processing chain before sending applicant data there. 2 4 10
The Revenue Operations Lead
The contracting entity is named as Signicat AS in Norway with a registered organisation number, product pages state all data is stored and processed in Europe or the EU, and the vendor presents itself as an EU-certified trust service provider. But we found no public information on ownership, a subprocessor list with locations, named data centres, or published certifications, and the independently sourced sovereignty record marks residency and ownership as unconfirmed. 2 4 6 10
The Integration Engineer
Signicat AS of Trondheim is the named contracting entity, the captured pages state all data is stored and processed in Europe in GDPR compliance, and Signicat itself acts as the qualified trust service provider. But the entity sits in Norway — EEA, not the EU — and we found no public information on ownership, a subprocessor list with locations, or published certifications such as ISO 27001; the only subprocessor traces are Microsoft Exchange cloud for email and a third-party newsletter processor. 2 4 6 10
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is Signicat AS, registered in Norway, the vendor states it is itself the certified qualified trust service provider, and the captured pages state that data is stored and processed in Europe — one page saying "in the EU". We found no public information on ownership, a subprocessor list with locations, named data centres, customer-selectable residency, or certifications such as ISO 27001 or ETSI conformity; the privacy policy names only Microsoft Exchange for email and web analytics processors. 2 4 10 6
The Skeptic
Signicat AS is a named Norwegian entity (EEA rather than EU) with an organisation number, the captured pages give different figures for storage — stated as Europe on one and the EU on another — and the qualified trust service is claimed to be operated in-house. We found no public information on ownership, a subprocessor list, named data centres or certifications, and corporate email is processed through Microsoft Exchange cloud. 2 4 6 10
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 — 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 only public offers we found are a free eID and wallets trial and a free developer test account; we found no public information on plan prices, per-signature fees for advanced or qualified signatures, identification charges, API pricing or contract terms, and the product pages steer buyers to talking to an expert. The cost of any signing volume is not computable from what was captured. 5 1 9
The HR Operations Lead
The only pricing-adjacent facts captured are a free eID and wallets trial and a free developer test account; we found no public information on plan prices, envelope or document limits, the per-signature price of advanced or qualified signatures, identification fees, or API pricing. As someone who must know the cost of a qualified signature before the contract goes out, I cannot compute the cost of my annual volume from public pages. 1 5
The Revenue Operations Lead
No public prices appear anywhere in the captured pages — not plan prices, not envelope limits, not a per-signature qualified signature fee, not identification or API pricing. Only a free trial and a free developer test account are named, with talking to an expert as the buying path, so the cost of any monthly signing volume is simply not computable. 1 5 9
The Integration Engineer
Only a free eID and wallets trial and a free developer test account appear publicly; we found no public information on plan prices, envelope limits, per-signature costs for qualified signing, identification fees or API pricing. A buyer cannot compute the cost of any signing volume from these pages. 1 5
The Data Protection Officer
The only public pricing facts are a free eID and wallets trial, a free test account, and a "Talk to a DEM expert" contact. We found no public information on plan prices, envelope or document limits, per-signature fees for qualified signatures, identification fees, API pricing, overage, or contract term — a buyer cannot compute the cost of any signing volume from these pages. 5 1 9
The Skeptic
The only public commercial terms we found are a free eID and wallets trial and a free developer test account; we found no public information on plan prices, envelope or document limits, per-signature qualified signature fees, identification fees, API pricing or contract terms. The cost of any signing volume — let alone a qualified one — cannot be computed from the captured pages. 1 5
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Signicat Sign
Is Signicat Sign European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Signicat Sign is based.
Where does Signicat Sign store data?
The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026. The vendor’s pages mention Europe as hosting location, per the vendor’s page captured 20 Oct 2026.
Does Signicat Sign have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Signicat Sign?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Scrive (3/5), Viafirma Documents (2.5/5) and Penneo (2.5/5) highest among the other 18 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 Scrive (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Signicat Sign alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 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. 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.
- 7 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
- 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 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
- 2 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 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is shown as unknown. 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 page www.signicat.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.signicat.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 EIDAS levels & trust services — found from sitemap www.signicat.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 EIDAS levels & trust services — found from sitemap www.signicat.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Signer identification — found from sitemap www.signicat.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Signer identification — found from sitemap www.signicat.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Signing workflow & signer experience — found from sitemap developer.signicat.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Signing workflow & signer experience — found from sitemap www.signicat.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Evidence, validation & retention — found from sitemap www.signicat.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Evidence, validation & retention — found from sitemap www.signicat.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations & API — found from sitemap developer.signicat.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →