E-Signature
SignNow
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by SignNow (airSlate) · www.signnow.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.
SignNow at a glance
- Vendor
- SignNow (airSlate)
- 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 SignNow 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. SignNow, an e-signature product from airSlate, earns its highest marks on integration and API, where scores sit at 7: a documented REST API with webhooks, SDKs and embedded sending, plus native connectors for Microsoft 365, Salesforce, NetSuite, SharePoint and Dynamics. 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
SignNow, an e-signature product from airSlate, earns its highest marks on integration and API, where scores sit at 7: a documented REST API with webhooks, SDKs and embedded sending, plus native connectors for Microsoft 365, Salesforce, NetSuite, SharePoint and Dynamics. Signing workflow, at 6 to 7, and evidence and retention, at 6 to 7, cover templates with conditional fields, sequential signing order, bulk sending from CSV, offline mobile signing with no signer account, a court-admissible audit trail and seven-year default retention. Sovereignty is weakest at 0 to 2: no public information appears on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, storage locations, a data processing agreement or a subprocessor list; the pages name airSlate Inc. as copyright holder and carry a GDPR compliance claim. Signature levels, 4 to 5, and identity verification, 4, are marked down: qualified signing is 'Available via integration' with no trust service provider named on the EU Trust List and no countries or accepted ID documents stated. Pricing transparency scores 3 to 4 on one published figure: '$8/user/month billed annually', and no criterion spans more than two points.
Speaks for it
- Documented REST API with webhooks, SDKs, embedded sending and white-labelling, plus native connectors for Microsoft 365, Salesforce, NetSuite, SharePoint and Dynamics.
- Reusable templates with conditional fields and role assignments, sequential signing order, and bulk sending from CSV with batch status tracking.
- Embedded, court-admissible audit trail with seven-year default retention and export as PDF with JSON metadata carrying cryptographic signature evidence.
- Published starting price of '$8/user/month billed annually', a free 7-day trial with no credit card required, and a stated policy of no overages or hidden fees at renewal.
- Signers need no account and can sign offline on iOS and Android apps.
Held against it
- Qualified signing appears only as 'Available via integration', with no qualified trust service provider or EU Trust List entry named.
- No public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where documents and identity data are stored, a data processing agreement or a subprocessor list.
- Only a starting price is published — no per-plan prices, envelope limits or per-signature costs for advanced and qualified signing, and IdenTrust certificates are listed as add-on fees without amounts.
- Identity verification methods are listed by name, but no countries, accepted ID documents or identification provider are stated.
- No public information on long-term validation, a named qualified timestamp provider or a validation report for stored signatures.
Best for
- You are embedding signing into your own portal or CRM through a documented REST API with webhooks, SDKs and embedded signing.
- Your team works inside Salesforce, NetSuite, SharePoint, Dynamics or Microsoft 365 and wants signing triggered from records in those systems.
- You run recurring high-volume sends — bulk sending from CSV with batch status tracking and reusable templates fits contract runs at scale.
- You want simple and PAdES advanced signatures at a published starting price, with signers who need no account and can sign offline on mobile.
Avoid if
- You need qualified e-signatures operated directly by the vendor with a named EU trust service provider — the pages list qualified signing only as 'Available via integration'.
- Your procurement requires published commitments on data residency, a data processing agreement or subprocessors — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You must compute total cost for your signature volume from public pages — only a starting price is published, without envelope limits or per-signature costs.
- Your agreements may face disputes years after signing — the pages give no public information on long-term validation or a named qualified timestamp provider.
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| eIDAS levels & trust services | 2.5 of 5 |
| Signer identification | 2 of 5 |
| Signing workflow & signer experience | 3.5 of 5 |
| Evidence, validation & retention | 3.5 of 5 |
| Integrations & API | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 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 — 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
PAdES advanced signatures and a definition of the qualified level under eIDAS are published, with qualified signing offered "via integration" and IdenTrust certificates sold as add-ons; I found no public information naming a qualified trust service provider or its entry on the EU Trust List, on per-country availability, or on ZertES, which is what I must know before relying on a qualified signature. 3 5 8
The HR Operations Lead
The pages name PAdES advanced signatures and a QES defined under the eIDAS framework as backed by a qualified certificate from an accredited trust service provider, but the qualified option is only "Available via integration" and the trust service provider behind it is not named or linked to the EU Trust List. No page explains which of my fixed-term contracts need which level in Germany, and certificates appear only as IdenTrust add-on fees without a stated plan mapping. 3 8 5
The Revenue Operations Lead
Simple signatures (typed, drawn or uploaded) plus PAdES advanced signatures are documented, and qualified signatures are defined under eIDAS as backed by a qualified certificate from an accredited trust service provider — but qualified signing is only "available via integration", and the captured pages name no trust service provider, no countries and no per-level plan mapping. 1 3 5 8
The Integration Engineer
Advanced signing is the documented core: plans are said to include PAdES advanced e-signatures, certificate-backed options exist with IdenTrust certificates as add-on fees, and OCSP/CRL revocation checks run at signing time — but the qualified level appears only as "Available via integration". We found no public information naming a qualified trust service provider or its EU Trust List entry, and none on which countries, plans or documents carry the qualified level, so I could not build per-level signing into our portal from what is published. 3 5 8 1
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages document typed and drawn simple signatures, PAdES advanced e-signatures included in plans, and qualified signatures defined under the eIDAS framework offered 'Available via integration' with IdenTrust certificates as add-on fees. I found no public information on a qualified trust service provider named with its EU Trust List entry, on qualified seals, or on which countries or legal regimes each level covers, so this sits at the middle of the scale. 3 5 8
The Skeptic
The pages name eIDAS levels — simple signatures by typing, drawing or uploading, PAdES advanced PDF signatures, and a qualified signature the vendor itself describes only as "Available via integration" rather than a service it operates. No qualified trust service provider on the EU Trust List is named anywhere; the sole certificate add-on mentioned is IdenTrust, with fees unstated. Which plans carry which level, and which documents need the qualified level, are not explained for Germany or the EU. 3 8 5 1
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
Methods are named — document-based and government ID checks, knowledge-based questions, SMS one-time passwords, liveness checks and third-party identity providers — but the captured pages state no countries or accepted ID documents, name no identification provider, and say nothing about what happens to ID data after signing. 3 4 8
The HR Operations Lead
Methods are listed by name — document-based ID checks, knowledge-based questions, government ID checks, SMS or phone one-time codes, third-party identity providers — with selfie or video liveness and camera-based ID upload for mobile signers, which suits a hire signing on a phone. The pages give no information on which countries' ID documents are accepted, who performs the check, or what happens to ID data afterwards, and no European eID card, video ident or wallet route is described. 4 3 5
The Revenue Operations Lead
Methods are listed by name — document-based ID verification, knowledge-based questions, government ID checks, SMS/phone OTPs, third-party identity providers, and selfie/video liveness — with verification requirements configurable by document type, signer role or transaction value. But the pages state no countries, no accepted ID documents and no identification provider, so I cannot tell what a German or French signer will actually be asked to do. 3 4 5
The Integration Engineer
Methods are listed by name — document-based ID verification, knowledge-based questions, government ID checks, SMS/phone OTPs, liveness selfie checks and third-party identity providers — with the strength configurable per document type, signer role or transaction value and channels covering web, mobile camera, API and in-person. We found no public information on the countries or ID documents accepted, on the identification provider by name, or on what happens to ID data afterwards. That is enough to wire verification into a portal flow, not enough to judge European qualified identification. 4 3 8
The Data Protection Officer
Identification methods are listed by name — document-based ID verification, government ID checks, knowledge-based questions, SMS/phone codes, third-party identity providers, and liveness checks across web, mobile, API and in-person channels — and requirements can be configured by document type, signer role or transaction value. But I found no public information on who performs each identification in which countries, which ID documents are accepted, or the retention and deletion of ID data afterwards, which is exactly what a signer hands over biometrics to learn. 3 4 5
The Skeptic
Methods are listed by name — government ID checks, knowledge-based questions, SMS and phone codes, selfie or video liveness, in-person ID capture — with a stated default of two-factor plus an identity document check. But no identification provider is named, no countries or accepted ID documents are given, and nothing is said about what happens to ID data afterwards. These read as US-style checks; we found no public information on video ident, eID card or wallet-based identification for European signers. 4 3 5
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
Templates with conditional fields and roles, a role-based sequential signing order, bulk sending from CSV with batch tracking, automatic reminders, SMS delivery, mobile and offline signing without a signee account, and custom branding are all documented; I found no public information on substitute signers, signer languages or signer accessibility. 1 3 4 6 8
The HR Operations Lead
Reusable templates with role-based and conditional fields, CSV bulk sending with per-recipient variable mapping and batch status tracking, sequential signing order with configurable reminders and expiry, and signing on iOS or Android without an account cover my two hundred contracts a year. I found no public information on delegation or substitute signers, signer languages, or signer accessibility, and only sequential order is documented. 6 1 8 7
The Revenue Operations Lead
This is where the evidence is strongest: reusable templates with conditional fields and assigned roles, sequential signing order enforced by default, automatic reminders on a documented schedule, CSV bulk send with batch tracking, custom branding, and signers who need no account and can close deals offline on iOS or Android. The captured pages give different figures for the default reminder frequency, but both show reminders run themselves; substitute signers, signer languages and accessibility are not described, which keeps it off the top rung. 1 3 5 6 8
The Integration Engineer
Templates with reusable conversion, fillable and conditional fields with roles, a role-based sequential signing order, bulk send from CSV with per-recipient variable mapping and batch status tracking, reminders, SMS sending, offline mobile signing and account-free signing are all documented. We found no public information on delegation or substitute signers, parallel signing, signer languages or accessibility. Note the captured pages give different figures for reminder frequency — 48 hours then daily in one place, every 72 hours in another. 1 6 8 4
The Data Protection Officer
Templates with required, optional and conditional fields assigned to roles, sequential signing order, bulk sending from CSV lists with batch status tracking, automatic reminders, SMS sending, offline mobile apps, and signing without registration are all documented. I found no public information on delegation and substitute signers, signer languages, or signer accessibility, which keeps this below the upper range. 1 6 8
The Skeptic
Templates with conditional fields and roles, role-based signing order with sequential routing, bulk sending from CSV with per-envelope status tracking, automatic reminders (the captured pages give different defaults for the reminder interval), SMS sending, payment collection at signing, and iOS and Android apps with offline signing, all without signers needing an account. Delegation and substitute signers, parallel signing order, signer languages and accessibility are not described, which is where the documentation stops. 1 6 8 3
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
An embedded, court-admissible audit trail, trusted timestamps, PAdES signatures, tamper-evident seals and an archive function returning the document, cryptographic signature evidence, timestamps, signer identities and audit trail entries are documented, with seven-year default retention described as configurable; I found no public information on long-term validation, a named qualified timestamp provider, a validation report or automatic deletion — and a seven-year default is thin if a contract is disputed in year eight. 3 5 6 7 8
The HR Operations Lead
A court-admissible audit trail is documented with seven-year retention as the stated default, encrypted archiving, timestamps, stored signature hashes, OCSP and CRL revocation checks, and export as PDF with JSON metadata plus audit bundles pushed to cloud folders under retention rules — seven years matches my employment-document retention. Long-term validation, a named qualified timestamp provider, a validation report and automatic deletion are not described, so how the evidence stands up in year six is only partly answered. 3 7 6 8
The Revenue Operations Lead
An embedded, court-admissible audit trail, trusted timestamps, and archive retrieval that returns the finalized document with cryptographic signature evidence, timestamps, signer identities and an audit trail entry; seven-year default retention described as configurable, and export as PDF plus JSON metadata with signed manifests pushed to cloud folders or pulled over REST. Long-term validation, a named timestamp provider and automatic deletion are not described, so proof that outlives the subscription is not fully documented. 3 5 6 7 8
The Integration Engineer
Archiving is the strongest part for my use case: on completion the archive function returns the finalized document, cryptographic signature evidence, timestamps, signer identities and an audit trail entry, a REST endpoint serves archived files with JSON metadata and signed manifests for automated retrieval, and 7-year default retention is stated with configurable retention rules into cloud folders. PAdES is supported and audit trails are described as court-admissible. We found no public information on long-term validation, qualified timestamps from a named provider, or an independent validation report. 7 6 8
The Data Protection Officer
An embedded audit trail described as court-admissible, trusted timestamps, OCSP and CRL revocation checks, a seven-year default retention with encrypted archive and configurable retention rules, and export of the finalised document with cryptographic signature evidence, timestamps, signer identities and audit trail entry as PDF with JSON metadata are documented. I found no public information on long-term validation of the PAdES signatures, a named qualified timestamp provider, or an independent validation report, so I cannot confirm the evidence survives the years a signature must. 3 7 8
The Skeptic
An embedded, court-admissible audit trail with timestamps and stored signature hashes, PAdES PDF signatures, a seven-year default retention period, and export as PDF with JSON metadata carrying cryptographic signature evidence, timestamps and signer identities. But long-term validation is never mentioned, the timestamp provider is not named, no validation report or tool is documented, and automatic deletion is not described even though retention is called configurable in a vendor comparison. 3 7 8 6
Integrations & API
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Signing from inside the systems where contracts are made: a documented API with webhooks and a sandbox, embedded signing, and connectors for Microsoft 365, CRM, HR, DMS and ERP systems.
0 — 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
The developer documentation shows a REST API with Bearer authentication, webhooks, SDKs, sample apps, embedded sending, editing and signing, white-labelling and a notarisation endpoint, alongside named native connectors for Microsoft 365, Salesforce, NetSuite, Dynamics, SharePoint, Google Workspace, Dropbox and Box; I found no public information on a sandbox, published rate limits or API access per signature level. 1 4 5 7 9
The HR Operations Lead
Developer documentation shows a REST API with bearer authentication, webhooks, SDKs, sample apps, embedded sending and signing, white-labelling and bulk API operations, alongside native connectors for Microsoft 365, SharePoint, Dynamics, Salesforce and NetSuite and storage connectors for Dropbox, Box and Google Drive. A sandbox, published rate limits and API versioning are not described, and no HR system connector is named. 9 1 4 7 6
The Revenue Operations Lead
Signing from inside the systems where deals live is well evidenced: native connectors for Salesforce, NetSuite, Dynamics, SharePoint and Microsoft 365, with Salesforce described as triggering workflows from contact or opportunity records and storing signed documents against the customer record; a documented REST API with webhooks, SDKs, embedded sending, embedded signing, embedded editing and white-labeling. A sandbox, published rate limits and API versioning are not described, and pricing for API plans is given only as "available in plans or add-on". 1 4 7 8 9
The Integration Engineer
The developer story is real: a REST API at api.signnow.com with Bearer auth, webhooks for event callbacks, SDKs and sample apps, embedded sending, editor and signing, a white-labeling guide, bulk API operations, and native connectors for NetSuite, SharePoint, Dynamics, Salesforce, Microsoft 365, Google Drive, Dropbox and Box, with API access priced in plans or as an add-on. For a portal build the gaps matter: we found no public information on a sandbox, on API versioning, on published rate limits, or on whether every signature level is reachable through the API rather than only via an integration partner. 9 1 4 6
The Data Protection Officer
A documented REST API with bearer authentication, webhooks, SDKs, sample apps, an API dashboard, embedded sending, editing and signing, white-labelling guidance and bulk endpoints is published, alongside native integrations with Microsoft 365, Salesforce, NetSuite, SharePoint, Dynamics, Google Drive, Dropbox and Box. I found no public information on a sandbox, published rate limits and API versioning, API access to each signature level, or an HR connector. 1 4 9
The Skeptic
A documented REST API with webhooks, bearer authentication, an API dashboard, SDKs, sample apps, bulk endpoints, a notarization endpoint, embedded sending, signing and editing, a white-labeling guide, and native connectors for NetSuite, SharePoint, Dynamics, Salesforce, Microsoft 365, Google Drive, Dropbox and Box, on separate API plans. A sandbox, published rate limits, API versioning and a deprecation policy are not described, and API access to the qualified level is not shown — fittingly, since that level itself runs through an integration. 9 1 4 5
European sovereignty
panel opinion
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
n/r
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 not rated — no public information
I found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where documents, audit trails and ID data are stored, hosting options, or a data processing agreement; the only adjacent facts are a GDPR-compliance claim and a copyright line naming airSlate Inc., which states no jurisdiction. 1 4
The HR Operations Lead not rated — no public information
We found no public information on the European footprint: the captured pages name the operating company only as airSlate Inc. and state no jurisdiction for it, no document or ID-data storage location, no hosting options, no trust service provider location and no data processing agreement. I read the vendor homepage and the feature and developer pages without finding any of these. 1 5 9
The Revenue Operations Lead not rated — no public information
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where documents and signer data are stored or processed, the hosting chain, a data processing agreement, or subprocessors and their locations; the captured pages carry compliance claims such as GDPR alongside US-focused ESIGN and UETA statements, which state none of these dimensions. 1 4
The Integration Engineer
The only European element we found is a GDPR compliance claim plus eIDAS framing on the qualified-signature page; the contracting entity shown is airSlate Inc. We found no public information on where documents, audit trails or ID data are stored, on a data processing agreement, or on an EU qualified trust service provider — every sovereignty dimension is undocumented on the captured pages. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer not rated — no public information
I found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where documents, audit trails and identity data are stored or processed, the trust service chain's location, subprocessors with their locations, or a published data processing agreement; every sovereignty dimension came back unknown. The pages I read carry only a general GDPR compliance claim, US-sector certifications, and a copyright notice for airSlate Inc., which proves no European element either way. 1 4 5
The Skeptic not rated — no public information
We found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where documents, audit trails or identity data are stored, hosting options, a data processing agreement, or a subprocessor list. The captured pages name only airSlate Inc. as copyright holder and carry a GDPR compliance badge, which is a compliance claim, not a statement of European storage, ownership or providers. 1 4 7
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 — 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
A public starting price of "$8/user/month billed annually" and a free seven-day trial with no credit card are shown, and the pages state there are no overages or hidden fees; but only a from-price appears — I found no public information on per-plan prices, envelope or document limits, per-signature prices for advanced and qualified signatures (IdenTrust certificates are acknowledged only as "add-on fees"), identification fees, or contract term and notice period, and enterprise pricing is custom quotes. 1 4 5 7
The HR Operations Lead
A starting price of "$8/user/month billed annually" is public, with a free trial requiring no credit card and a statement of no overages or hidden fees, but that is the only figure. Qualified-signature certificates appear only as IdenTrust add-on fees with no amounts, API pricing is "Available in plans or add-on" without numbers, and the pages give no plan-by-plan envelope or document limits, so I cannot compute the cost of a year of qualified contracts before signing one. 5 4 8 7
The Revenue Operations Lead
A public starting price of $8/user/month billed annually (shown as an estimate on one comparison page), a free 7-day trial with no credit card, and a stated policy of no overages or hidden fees at renewal — but that is the only figure: per-plan envelope limits, per-signature prices for advanced and qualified levels, identification fees, and API plan prices are not on the captured pages, and IdenTrust certificates are named as add-on fees without amounts. 1 4 5 8
The Integration Engineer
One public starting price is given — $8/user/month billed annually — with a free 7-day trial, "no overages or hidden fees at renewal", IdenTrust certificates as add-on fees, and API access in plans or as an add-on. We found no public information on per-plan envelope limits, per-signature prices for the advanced or qualified levels, identification fees, or contract term and notice period. Volume pricing is custom quotes. 5 1 8
The Data Protection Officer
A public starting price of '$8/user/month billed annually', a seven-day trial without credit card, a statement of 'no overages or hidden fees at renewal', API access 'Available in plans or add-on', and IdenTrust certificates as add-on fees are published. I found no public information on per-plan envelope or document limits or per-signature prices for advanced and qualified signing, so a buyer cannot compute the cost of their volume from public pages alone. 3 5 8
The Skeptic
There is a public starting price of "$8/user/month billed annually", a free 7-day trial without credit card, and a "no overages or hidden fees" claim — but no per-plan prices, no envelope or document limits, and no contract term or notice period. The certificate option appears only as "IdenTrust certs as add-on fees" and the API as "Available in plans or add-on", both without amounts, and per-signature qualified-signature and identification fees are absent, so a buyer cannot compute the cost of their volume. 5 4 8 1
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 | — | 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 SignNow
Is SignNow European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where SignNow is based.
Where does SignNow store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
Does SignNow have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to SignNow?
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: SignNow 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.
- 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.
- 24 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 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 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
- 1 integrations 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
Sources (10)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.signnow.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 EIDAS levels & trust services — found from sitemap www.signnow.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 EIDAS levels & trust services — found from sitemap www.signnow.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Signer identification — found from sitemap www.signnow.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Signer identification — found from sitemap www.signnow.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Signing workflow & signer experience — found from sitemap www.signnow.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Evidence, validation & retention — found from sitemap www.signnow.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 Evidence, validation & retention — found from sitemap www.signnow.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 9 Integrations & API — found from sitemap docs.signnow.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations & API — found from sitemap www.signnow.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →