vendorsAIprivacy

Product Comparison: eSignature Vendors’ Posture on AI Data Handling

ssealed

2026-03-09

12 min read

Compare leading eSignature vendors on AI access, retention, opt‑outs, and model‑training safeguards—scorecards and procurement playbook for 2026.

Hook: Why your eSignature choice now includes an AI data‑handling decision

If your organization seals, archives, or signs sensitive records, you no longer buy only an eSignature product. You buy a partner who decides whether scanned contracts, HR records, or legal exhibits can be read by AI systems — and whether those systems may be used to train future models. For risk‑averse IT, legal, and compliance teams, an unchecked AI pipeline can undo years of controls in a single API call.

The problem in one paragraph

Vendors rolled AI features into signing platforms across 2024–2025. By 2026 those features are mainstream, but policies and implementations vary dramatically. Some platforms route document content into third‑party LLMs (even while promising “no training”) or expose sealed content to agentic copilots. Others isolate content behind strict opt‑outs, customer‑managed keys, and contractually guaranteed non‑training clauses. For decision makers, the differences map directly to compliance risk and legal admissibility.

How to read this comparison (what matters for risk‑averse orgs)

We compare leading vendors on a focused set of criteria that determine real operational risk:

AI Data Access — Can platform AI or integrated third‑party AI see document content?
Retention Controls — How long copies are kept, and whether retention can be locked/shortened.
Opt‑out & Granular Controls — Admin APIs or per‑document flags to exempt content from AI processing.
Model‑training Safeguards — Contractual and technical guarantees that data won’t be used to train vendor or third‑party models.
Data Residency & Encryption — Tenant isolation, customer‑managed keys (CMK), HSMs, and regional storage.
Auditability & Chain‑of‑Custody — Tamper evidence, immutable logs, and verifiable timestamps.

Context: 2026 trends that change vendor posture

Late 2025 and early 2026 saw three trends that directly affect how eSignature vendors treat AI:

Regulatory tightening: EU enforcement of the AI Act and expanded guidance on data protection and automated systems means vendors face higher regulatory risk when allowing AI access to personal or regulated data.
Cloud provider promises: AWS, Azure, and Google updated their “no training” and data isolation guarantees for foundation models. Vendors increasingly rely on these cloud assurances but must still contractually flow guarantees to customers.
Customer demand for opt‑outs: Post‑2024 incidents and investigative reporting led to CISO requirements for explicit per‑document opt‑outs and CMK options as standard procurement asks.

Vendors evaluated

We evaluated six widely used signing platforms (representative of enterprise and mid‑market choices):

DocuSign
Adobe Sign
Dropbox Sign (HelloSign)
OneSpan
PandaDoc
SignNow (airSlate)

Scoring methodology

Each vendor receives a 1–5 score on the six criteria listed above (1 = high residual risk for a regulated org; 5 = low risk / enterprise controls present). Scores reflect policy statements, documented product controls as of early 2026, and common contractual upgrade options (e.g., addenda for data protection or encryption). If you need raw evidence for procurement, treat vendor statements as starting points; require contractual commitments.

Vendor scorecards (quick view)

Below are summarized scorecards for quick comparison. We follow each card with the practical implication for procurement.

DocuSign — Overall: 4.2

AI Data Access: 4 — DocuSign introduced optional AI features and provides admin toggles. By default, signed envelopes are not forwarded to third‑party training systems; however, certain integrations (CLM + AI) require explicit enablement.
Retention Controls: 4 — Per‑envelope retention settings, legal hold, and export APIs are available for enterprise plans.
Opt‑out: 5 — Admin-level opt‑outs and per‑envelope flags; API to prevent AI processing.
Model‑training Safeguards: 4 — DocuSign offers contractual assurances; explicit “no ADVERTISED training” clauses available in enterprise contracts. Verify with DPA or Addendum.
Data Residency & Encryption: 4 — Regional storage options, BYOK/HSM available for higher‑tier plans.
Auditability: 5 — Comprehensive audit trails, tamper‑evident seals, and timestamping suitable for chain‑of‑custody needs.

Procurement implication: Strong option for regulated orgs if you negotiate the enterprise addendum for CMK and unambiguous non‑training language.

Adobe Sign — Overall: 4.1

AI Data Access: 3 — Adobe tightly integrates AI across Acrobat and Sign; many AI features are opt‑in, but Adobe’s document intelligence tooling can ingest content if enabled.
Retention Controls: 4 — Solid retention and eDiscovery features; preserve/export controls exist.
Opt‑out: 4 — Admin controls exist but require configuration. Per‑document opt‑outs available.
Model‑training Safeguards: 3 — Adobe’s Firefly and model pipelines have strong IP protections, but customers must request contract terms that prevent training on customer content.
Data Residency & Encryption: 4 — Regional hosting and enterprise key controls are offered on enterprise plans.
Auditability: 4 — Robust audit logs and tamper evidence. Integrates with Adobe Sign Trust Services for advanced signatures.

Procurement implication: Good if you standardize on Adobe for document workflows; insist on explicit non‑training guarantees and verify admin defaults.

Dropbox Sign (HelloSign) — Overall: 3.4

AI Data Access: 3 — Dropbox Sign benefits from Dropbox’s content services and emerging AI features. Certain AI integrations may surface document text.
Retention Controls: 3 — Basic retention with enterprise options; legal hold support varies by plan.
Opt‑out: 3 — Admin toggles exist but fewer granular controls than top enterprise players.
Model‑training Safeguards: 3 — Dropbox provides data processing commitments. For stronger guarantees, customers must negotiate contract terms.
Data Residency & Encryption: 3 — Regional controls improving but enterprise BYOK/HSM less mature than larger competitors.
Auditability: 4 — Solid audit logs, though some advanced chaining features are limited.

Procurement implication: Mid‑market fit. Risk‑averse orgs should require contractual non‑training language and confirm retention defaults.

OneSpan — Overall: 4.5

AI Data Access: 5 — OneSpan emphasizes sealed signing workflows and explicit isolation. AI features are conservative and opt‑in at the customer’s request.
Retention Controls: 5 — Fine‑grained retention, strong legal hold, and archival export features designed for regulated sectors.
Opt‑out: 5 — Per‑envelope opt‑out, admin controls, and APIs to deny AI processing.
Model‑training Safeguards: 5 — Clear contractual no‑training guarantees are part of enterprise packages; support for strict DPAs and confidentiality addenda.
Data Residency & Encryption: 5 — Enterprise control including HSM/CMK, on‑premises options for some products.
Auditability: 5 — Designed for high‑trust use cases: eIDAS/QES support, hardware security modules, and strong chain‑of‑custody features.

Procurement implication: Best fit for finance, healthcare, and government buyers who need minimal AI exposure and enterprise contract controls.

PandaDoc — Overall: 3.3

AI Data Access: 3 — PandaDoc added AI document summarization and content generation; those features can process doc content when enabled.
Retention Controls: 3 — Standard retention with enterprise add‑ons; not as sophisticated as pure signing platforms.
Opt‑out: 3 — Per‑account toggles but fewer per‑document programmatic controls.
Model‑training Safeguards: 3 — Offers DPAs and privacy commitments; customers need to negotiate stronger non‑training clauses.
Data Residency & Encryption: 3 — Regional hosting available; BYOK/HSM options limited.
Auditability: 3 — Basic audit trails adequate for SMBs but not enterprise chain‑of‑custody needs.

Procurement implication: Good productivity features for sales and operations; not the top pick for high‑risk regulated document sealing.

SignNow (airSlate) — Overall: 3.6

AI Data Access: 3 — Integrations with automation tools can surface content; default controls exist but require configuration.
Retention Controls: 3 — Reasonable retention and export; advanced legal hold needs enterprise add‑ons.
Opt‑out: 4 — Admin controls available; per‑document flags in API exist.
Model‑training Safeguards: 3 — Standard privacy commitments; specific non‑training guarantees must be negotiated.
Data Residency & Encryption: 3 — Regional hosting improving; CMK/HSM less common.
Auditability: 4 — Good audit trail support for mid‑market customers.

Procurement implication: A practical mid‑market choice; secure enough with contractual addenda but verify defaults and data flow diagrams.

What these scores mean in practice

Score differences often reflect defaults and contractability. A vendor with a 3 may be acceptable if you can negotiate the right addenda. For risk‑averse organizations, the critical questions are operational: Can you turn off AI processing for high‑risk folders? Can you require BYOK? Does the vendor legally commit to not use your sealed content for model training?

"A vendor promise is not a control until it is written into contract and supported by technical enforcement (API flags, CMK, eDiscovery hooks)."

Actionable procurement checklist (what to ask and require)

Use this checklist in RFPs and security questionnaires. For each item request a specific product or contractual reference.

Explicit non‑training clause — Require language that customer data will not be used to train vendor or third‑party models without explicit, written consent.
Per‑document AI opt‑out — API or admin setting that prevents any AI processing of specified documents/envelopes.
Customer‑managed keys (BYOK/CMK) — HSM‑backed key control to ensure vendor cannot decrypt artifacts without customer consent.
Data residency — Regional storage guarantees matching your data residency policy; support for on‑prem or private cloud where needed.
Retention/Deletion guarantees — SLA for deletion, secure erase, and evidence of deletion for audit.
Immutable audit logs — Tamper‑evident logs, long‑term retention, and exportable chain‑of‑custody records.
Third‑party AI integrations — Complete list of supported AI integrations and whether they ever receive unredacted document content.
Security certifications — SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, and any sectoral attestations (FedRAMP/GovCloud or eIDAS/QES support).
Incident response & notifications — Clear breach notification timelines tied to regulatory requirements.

Sample contractual language (redlines you can request)

Below are short examples you can paste into a DPA or addendum. Adjust for legal review.

No‑Training Commitment: "Provider shall not use Customer Data to train, improve, or validate any machine learning, artificial intelligence, or similar models, whether proprietary or third‑party, without Customer's prior written consent."
Per‑Document Opt‑Out: "Customer may, by API or administrative console, designate any Document as exempt from all forms of automated processing, including but not limited to natural language processing, model inference, or training. Provider shall enforce and log such exemptions."
CMK & Key Escrow: "Customer may elect BYOK with HSM storage. Provider shall not retain unencrypted copies of Customer Data nor possess any effective ability to decrypt Customer Data after termination without Customer's written consent."
Deletion & Retention: "Provider will delete or return Customer Data within X days of request, and provide certificate of destruction. For data retained for compliance or legal hold, Provider will maintain documented chain of custody and provide export in machine‑readable form."

Operational controls you should implement

Default to off: Disable any AI features by default. Enable only after risk assessment and approval.
Tagging & classification: Use automatic classification to tag PII/PHI/regulatory content and feed tags into opt‑out rules.
Environment separation: Keep AI experimentation environments isolated from production sealed archives.
Logging & monitoring: Monitor AI access logs and set alerts for any access patterns that deviate from policy.
Periodic audits: Require vendor audits and review change logs when vendor updates AI integrations or partners.

ROI and risk tradeoffs: a practical framework

AI features (summarization, redaction suggestions, signature routing intelligence) can save operational time. But productivity gains must be balanced against compliance risk and potential litigation exposure. Use this simple framework to evaluate ROI:

Estimate time saved per document (e.g., 10–30 minutes for complex contracts).
Multiply by number of documents processed monthly to get total labor hours saved.
Assign hourly cost and compute gross savings.
Estimate the expected annualized cost of added compliance risk if AI can access sealed documents (use range: negligible to material depending on sector and contract terms).
Compare scenarios: AI features enabled for low‑sensitivity folders only vs. enterprise‑wide enablement with contractual non‑training protections.

Example: If AI saves 15 minutes per contract and you process 10,000 contracts yearly, that’s 2,500 hours saved. At $60/hr that’s $150k/year gross. If a stronger contract rider for non‑training and CMK increases costs by $40k/year, ROI remains positive. But if unmitigated AI access increases expected litigation/regulatory costs by $200k/yr, the risk outweighs benefit.

Vendor selection recommendations by risk profile

Highly regulated (finance, healthcare, public sector): Prioritize vendors scoring 4.5+ (OneSpan) or those with strong CMK, explicit non‑training addenda, and eIDAS/QES support. Require on‑prem or private cloud options if available.
Moderately regulated (legal services, SaaS platforms): DocuSign and Adobe Sign are strong picks if you negotiate enterprise controls and verify admin defaults. Require explicit non‑training contract language and CMK where feasible.
Low‑risk / high velocity (sales, SMB workflows): PandaDoc or Dropbox Sign provide productivity gains but use opt‑outs and classification to protect sensitive documents.

Real‑world cautionary note

Recent reporting and experiments with AI agents on user files have shown how quickly sensitive content can leak into model outputs or logs when default controls are loose. That reality pushed many CISOs in late 2025 to treat AI access as a high‑priority procurement control. The practical lesson: vendor assurances matter, but documented, enforceable controls and technical gating (CMK, opt‑outs) matter more.

Checklist for legal, security, and procurement teams

Attach DPA addendum language above and demand vendor sign‑off.
Require a whitepaper on AI integrations and a list of any third‑party model vendors.
Test opt‑out flows during POC — configure a folder and verify no AI pipelines ingest files (ask for logs).
Require periodic attestations and the right to audit for compliance with non‑training clauses.

Future predictions (2026 onwards)

Expect the following trends through 2026 and beyond:

Standardized non‑training addenda: As buyers demand certainty, a market for standardized, vendor‑accepted non‑training clauses will emerge, reducing negotiation friction.
More CMK/BYOK as default: Customer‑managed key options will become a table‑stakes enterprise feature for eSignature platforms.
Regulatory test cases: We will see enforcement actions or test litigation where courts examine whether AI‑processed signed records retain legal admissibility — vendors with crisp audit trails and sealed, immutable evidence will have the advantage.

Final assessment

Not every organization needs the most conservative vendor. But every organization should make an explicit decision: enable AI features for convenience with strict boundaries, or insist on stronger contractual and technical controls. Treat AI data handling as a core security control — not an optional product feature.

Call to action

If you’re procuring an eSignature platform in 2026, start by downloading the vendor RFP checklist and the sample DPA addendum we provide. Run a live POC that tests per‑document opt‑outs and key management. If you want help benchmarking vendors against your compliance profile, contact our procurement advisory team for a gap analysis and an editable RFP template tailored to regulated industries.

sealed

Contributor

Senior editor and content strategist. Writing about technology, design, and the future of digital media. Follow along for deep dives into the industry's moving parts.