E-Signature
Universign
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Universign SA · www.universign.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.
Universign at a glance
- Vendor
- Universign SA
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Universign 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Universign SA presents an all-in-one European platform to sign, verify, archive and accelerate digital transactions, styled a European trusted third party for eIDAS-certified identity verification and electronic signatures. 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
Universign SA presents an all-in-one European platform to sign, verify, archive and accelerate digital transactions, styled a European trusted third party for eIDAS-certified identity verification and electronic signatures. The strongest scores land on sovereignty, at 3-4, and uniform 3s for signature levels and evidence and retention: eIDAS-qualified certificates, full traceability with time-stamped evidence and a legal archiving module are stated; the legal notice names a Spanish website owner — Ivnosys Soluciones, S.L.U., registered in Valencia, under Spanish law with Madrid courts for legal entities — and hosting in Europe ensuring data sovereignty is stated. The judges split on sovereignty between 3 and 4: some weigh the Spanish notice and European hosting, others the several brand identities carried at once while Signaturit Group is becoming Namirial, with no public information on subprocessors or data centres. Identity verification spans 2-3 — MFA, FIDO2, passkeys and KYC are named, but we found no public information on signer identification per level. The weakest is signing workflow at a flat 1, with integration and API at a flat 2 and pricing transparency at 1-2.
Speaks for it
- Creation, management and revocation of eIDAS-qualified certificates are stated, and signature levels scored a uniform 3
- Full traceability with time-stamped evidence, easier auditability and a legal archiving module are stated, with evidence and retention scoring a uniform 3
- The legal notice names a Spanish website owner — Ivnosys Soluciones, S.L.U., registered in Valencia, under Spanish law with Madrid courts for legal entities
- Hosting in Europe ensuring data sovereignty is stated on the vendor's pages
- Strong authentication is named as MFA, FIDO2 and passkeys
Held against it
- Signing workflow scored a flat 1 — we found no public information on templates, signing order, reminders, bulk sending or account-free signing
- The public API story is a single sentence, with no documentation, webhooks, sandbox or named connectors evidenced (integration and API: flat 2)
- No qualified trust service provider is named or linked to the EU Trust List, and we found no public information mapping signature level to plan or country
- We found no public information on subprocessors, data-centre locations or certifications, and the pages carry several brand identities while Signaturit Group is becoming Namirial
- No signer identification method is tied to any signature level, and what happens to signer ID data afterwards is unstated (identity verification: 2-3)
Best for
- You need an EU-oriented e-signature platform — stated hosting in Europe, a Spanish-law legal notice, eIDAS-qualified certificates — and you can confirm the trust-service chain and processing locations with the vendor before buying
- Your contracts rest on traceability and legal archiving, and you can validate the audit-trail contents and retention in a pilot before rollout
- You are procuring under EU jurisdiction terms and a published Spanish legal notice satisfies your first-pass legal screen
Avoid if
- You need workflow detail — templates, bulk sending, reminders, signing order — documented before shortlisting; signing workflow scored a flat 1
- Your roadmap depends on published API documentation, webhooks, a sandbox or named CRM and Microsoft 365 connectors today
- You must map each contract type to a signature level per plan and country, and to a named qualified trust service provider, before committing
- Your data-protection review requires a subprocessor list with locations and certification scopes up front
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| eIDAS levels & trust services | 1.5 of 5 |
| Signer identification | 1.5 of 5 |
| Signing workflow & signer experience | 0.5 of 5 |
| Evidence, validation & retention | 1.5 of 5 |
| Integrations & API | 1 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
Qualified appears only as "creation, management, and revocation of eIDAS-qualified certificates" from a self-described European trusted third party for eIDAS-certified signatures. I found no public information naming simple, advanced and qualified signature levels per plan or country, naming the qualified trust service provider or linking it to the EU Trust List, or addressing ZertES or Germany — so I cannot map a contract type to a required level from these pages. 1 3
The HR Operations Lead
The vendor states it handles the creation, management and revocation of eIDAS-qualified certificates and calls itself a European trusted third party for eIDAS-certified electronic signatures, so qualified is on the menu. But no trust service provider is named, and we found no public information on which plan or country delivers which level — for fixed-term contracts under written-form rules I need to know qualified is the default, not a possibility. 1 3
The Revenue Operations Lead
Qualified certificates and "eIDAS-certified" identity verification and signatures are mentioned as available, but I found no public information breaking simple, advanced and qualified levels down by plan or country, no qualified trust service provider named, and nothing on seals or which level is recorded in the signed document. 1 3
The Integration Engineer
The captured pages mention eIDAS-qualified certificates and style the group a European trusted third party for eIDAS-certified signatures, but we found no public information distinguishing simple, advanced and qualified signing, naming the qualified trust service provider with its EU Trust List entry, or stating which plan or country offers which level. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pages speak of eIDAS-qualified certificates and eIDAS-certified signatures, but I found no statement of which signature levels are offered on which plan or country, and no qualified trust service provider is identified with its trust-list entry. The word qualified appears; the trust chain behind it does not. 1 3
The Skeptic
Qualified is on the table — "Creation, management, and revocation of eIDAS-qualified certificates" and a claim of being a "European trusted third party for eIDAS-certified identity verification and electronic signatures" — but no trust service provider is named, no EU Trust List entry is linked, and no page says which signature level ships with which plan or country. "eIDAS 2.0" in a compliance list is a badge, not a statement of what the default signature signs at. We found no public information on simple or advanced levels, qualified seals, or the level printed in the signed document. 1 3
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
Strong authentication via MFA, FIDO2 and passkeys is stated, and identity verification and KYC appear as eIDAS-certified product modules, but these read as platform account authentication. I found no public information on signer identification methods such as video ident, eID card or bank ident, the provider that performs them, the countries or ID documents accepted, or the retention or deletion of ID data afterwards. 1 3
The HR Operations Lead
Electronic identification, document check and KYC are listed as trust modules, and MFA, FIDO2 and passkeys are named for strong authentication. We found no public information on how a signer is identified for each signature level — no video ident, eID or bank ident method, no identification provider, no accepted ID documents per country, and nothing on what happens to ID data afterwards, so I cannot tell whether the IDs my applicants actually hold will work. 1 2 3
The Revenue Operations Lead
Identity verification, KYC, Document Check and authentication methods (MFA, FIDO2, passkeys) are named as modules, but no signer identification method is tied to any signature level, no identification provider or accepted countries are named, and I found no public information on what happens to ID data afterwards. 1 3
The Integration Engineer
Strong authentication is named — MFA, FIDO2, passkeys — and KYC and digital identity appear as modules, but these read as platform features; we found no public information on signer identification methods per level such as video ident, eID or bank ident, who performs them, the countries or documents accepted, or what happens to the ID data. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
Identification appears as modules — identity verification, KYC, document check — and strong authentication is named as MFA, FIDO2 and passkeys, but I found no public information on identification methods per level such as video ident, eID or bank ident, on who performs them, or on what happens to signer ID data afterwards. Privacy mailboxes for four group entities hint at an identification chain, but a DPO address is not a disclosure of who processes the signer's documents. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
Account authentication methods are named — "MFA, FIDO2, passkeys" — and electronic identification and KYC exist as trust modules, but the captured pages never say how a signer is identified for a given signature level, by whom, or in which countries. We found no public information on video ident, eID, bank ident or EUDI wallet, nor on what happens to ID data afterwards. 1 3
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 captured pages say only that the all-in-one platform signs, verifies and archives, with electronic signature and legal archiving as modules. I found no public information on templates, signing order, bulk sending, reminders, sign-in-free signing, mobile signing or signer accessibility — nothing that lets me judge how a document actually goes out and comes back. 1
The HR Operations Lead
The pages present an all-in-one platform to sign, verify and archive, but the signing workflow itself is not described anywhere captured. We found no public information on templates, bulk sending, signing order, reminders, or whether a new hire can sign on a phone without an account — the template-and-bulk-send pattern I run two hundred times a year is simply not evidenced. 1 3
The Revenue Operations Lead
Electronic signature is confirmed as a main service of the platform, but I found no public information on templates, signing order, bulk sending, automatic reminders, or whether signers need an account or app — without these I cannot tell how quickly a quote would go out and come back signed. 1 2
The Integration Engineer
Beyond a platform summary of signing, verifying and archiving digital transactions and one line about controlling flows through secure APIs, we found no public information on templates and field placement, signing order, bulk sending, reminders, account-free or mobile signing, or signer accessibility. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
Beyond the all-in-one claim of signing, verifying and archiving, I found no public information on templates, signing order, reminders, bulk sending, or whether a signer can sign without creating an account — the only registration statement found concerns customers using the platform, not signers facing a document. 1 2
The Skeptic
The captured pages establish only that signing exists — an "Electronic signature" module in a platform "to sign, verify, archive and accelerate digital transactions" — and nothing beyond that. We found no public information on templates, field placement, signing order, bulk sending, reminders, mobile or account-free signing, or signer accessibility. 1 2
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
"Full traceability and time-stamped evidence" and easier auditability in the event of a dispute are stated, and legal archiving is a module, but I found no public information on the audit trail's contents, the timestamp source, long-term validation such as PAdES-LTV, a validation report or tool, or how long signed documents and evidence are kept and whether they can leave the platform. For a contract disputed in eight years, a slogan about timestamped evidence does not carry the weight. 1 3
The HR Operations Lead
Full traceability and time-stamped evidence are promised, auditability in a dispute is called out, and legal archiving is one of the trust modules — that reads as an audit trail in spirit. But its contents, the source of the timestamps and the retention period are unstated, so I cannot judge whether an employment contract's evidence still stands when a dispute arrives years later. 1 3
The Revenue Operations Lead
"Full traceability and time-stamped evidence", easier auditability and a legal archiving module are promised, but the contents of the evidence, the source of the timestamps, the retention period and whether documents can leave the platform with their evidence are all unstated in the captured pages. 1 3
The Integration Engineer
The pages promise full traceability with time-stamped evidence, easier auditability, and a legal archiving module, but we found no public information on the audit trail's contents, the timestamp source, long-term validation, retention periods, or export of signed documents with their evidence intact. 1 3
The Data Protection Officer
Time-stamped evidence, full traceability and legal archiving are claimed, but I found no statement of what the audit trail records — including whether IP addresses are kept — who supplies the timestamps, or how long signed documents and their evidence are retained. What a court would be able to examine five years after signing is left entirely open. 1 3
The Skeptic
"Full traceability and time-stamped evidence", "Easier auditability" and a "Legal archiving" module are claimed, but the timestamp source, the audit trail's contents and the retention period are all unstated. We found no public information on PAdES long-term validation, validation reports, or export of documents together with their evidence. 1 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
The sole fact is "Secure APIs for complete control over flows, access, and identities". I found no public information on API documentation, webhooks, a sandbox, embedded signing, or any named connector for Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, CRM, HR, DMS or ERP systems — an API mentioned without published documentation sits near the bottom. 3
The HR Operations Lead
Secure APIs for complete control over flows, access and identities are named, which is the hook I would use to file signed contracts straight into our HR system. We found no public information on API documentation, webhooks, a sandbox, or connectors for Microsoft 365, CRM or HR systems. 3
The Revenue Operations Lead
"Secure APIs for complete control over flows, access, and identities" is the only statement I found — no public API documentation, webhooks or sandbox, and no named connector for a CRM, Microsoft 365 or anything else — so signing from inside the systems where contracts are made is not evidenced. 3
The Integration Engineer
One line — "Secure APIs for complete control over flows, access, and identities" — is the entire public API story; we found no public information on API documentation, versioning, webhooks, a sandbox, embedded signing, or connectors to Microsoft 365, CRM, HR or DMS systems, which are exactly what I need to embed signing in our portal and archive the result. 3
The Data Protection Officer
Secure APIs are advertised for control over flows, access and identities, but I found no API documentation, no webhooks or sandbox, and no named connector to Microsoft 365, CRM, HR, DMS or ERP systems. 3
The Skeptic
The whole API story is one sentence: "Secure APIs for complete control over flows, access, and identities." No public documentation, webhooks or sandbox are evidenced, and we found no public information on connectors for Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, CRM, HR, DMS or ERP systems. 3
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
A Spanish company, Ivnosys Soluciones, registered in Valencia under Spanish law contracts with customers, group DPO contacts span Universign, Vialink and Validated ID, and hosting in Europe ensuring data sovereignty is stated. But I found no public information on ownership, named EU data centres or processing locations for audit trails and ID data, a subprocessor list, or published certifications such as ISO 27001 or ETSI conformity — the chain is European-sounding but unevidenced. 2 3
The HR Operations Lead
The legal notice puts a Spanish company registered in Valencia behind the site under Spanish law with Madrid courts for businesses, hosting in Europe with data sovereignty is stated, and DPO contacts are published for the Spanish and French group entities. Ownership is unknown while the group is becoming Namirial, and we found no subprocessor list with locations, no published certifications, and no confirmation of the contracting entity or storage locations for the Universign services themselves. 1 2 3
The Revenue Operations Lead
The captured legal notice names a Spanish website owner (Ivnosys Soluciones, Valencia registry, Spanish law, Madrid courts) and European hosting is stated, but the picture spans brands — Signaturit pages sit beside a Universign page that only announces the group is becoming Namirial. I found no public information on the contracting entity for the Universign site itself, on subprocessors, data-centre locations or certifications. 1 2 3
The Integration Engineer
The legal notice names a Spanish contracting entity — Ivnosys Soluciones, S.L.U., registered in Valencia, under Spanish law with Madrid courts — and the pages state hosting in Europe ensuring data sovereignty, but the group's transition to Namirial leaves ownership unstated, and we found no public information on named data centres, a subprocessor list with locations, or certifications such as ISO 27001 or ETSI conformity. 1 2 3
The Data Protection Officer
The captured legal notice names a Spanish website owner with Valencia registry details, Spanish law and Madrid courts, while the vendor is presented as Universign SA and the group is becoming Namirial — the captured pages give different names for the contracting entity and the ownership chain stays unknown. Hosting in Europe is claimed, yet I found no named data centre, no subprocessor list with locations, and no certification scope, so I cannot say where signer documents and ID data are actually processed beyond the word Europe. 1 2 3
The Skeptic
An EU owner is on the record — Ivnosys Soluciones, S.L.U. of Paterna, Spain, under Spanish governing law and the Valencia Commercial Registry — and "Hosting in Europe ensuring data sovereignty" is stated, though no data centre, subprocessor list or certification scope is published. The captured pages also give several brand identities at once — Signaturit Group "becoming Namirial", DPO contacts for Ivnosys, Validated ID, Universign and Vialink — without saying which entity contracts, hosts or provides the trust service. We found no public information on ownership above the website owner. 2 3
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 pricing-related fact is a legal-notice sentence that the website contains product descriptions and their characteristics and prices for online sales. I found no public information on plan prices, envelope or document limits, per-signature fees for advanced or qualified signatures, identification fees, API pricing or overage — a buyer cannot compute the cost of any signing volume from the captured pages. 2
The HR Operations Lead
The legal notice says the website includes prices for online sales, yet the captured pages carry no figures at all. We found no public information on plan prices, envelope limits, the per-signature cost of a qualified signature, identification fees or API pricing, so the price of a qualified signature before I send a contract is unknowable from these pages. 2
The Revenue Operations Lead
The legal notice states the website shows prices for online sales, but no plan price, envelope or document limit, per-signature fee for advanced or qualified signatures, identification fee or API price was captured — a month of signing volume cannot be computed from the captured pages. 2
The Integration Engineer
The legal notice states the website contains prices for online sales, but no plan price, envelope or document limit, per-signature fee for advanced or qualified signatures, identification fee, API price or overage term appears in the captured pages, so a buyer's volume cost is not computable from what is public here. 2
The Data Protection Officer
I found no plan price, envelope limit, or per-signature fee for advanced or qualified signatures; the only pricing statement found is a legal-notice line that the website contains prices for online sales, without showing them. A buyer cannot compute the cost of any signing volume from these pages, and identification fees go unmentioned. 2
The Skeptic
The only pricing fact anywhere is a legal notice saying the website contains "prices (for online sales)" — no plan price, envelope limit, per-signature fee, identification fee or API price is visible in what was captured. A buyer cannot compute the cost of any signing volume, let alone a qualified one. We found no public information on plan prices, qualified-signature pricing, overage or contract terms. 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Universign
Is Universign European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Universign is based.
Where does Universign store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does Universign have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Universign?
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: Universign 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, Data residency. 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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (universign.com, signaturit.com/legal-notice, signaturit.com/industries/it-security-and-information-systems). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- We found no public information on compliance on the pages we read (universign.com, signaturit.com/legal-notice, signaturit.com/industries/it-security-and-information-systems). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 16 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 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 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (3)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.universign.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Legal notice — found from the homepage www.signaturit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Security / trust page — found from the homepage www.signaturit.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →