DocuSign vs. OneSpan: Security features for US banks

Understanding Electronic Signature Security for US Banks

In the highly regulated landscape of US banking, electronic signatures have become essential for streamlining operations like loan approvals, account openings, and compliance filings. However, security remains paramount due to stringent federal and state regulations. The Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (ESIGN Act) of 2000 and the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA), adopted by 49 states, provide the legal framework for electronic signatures. These laws ensure that e-signatures carry the same validity as wet-ink signatures if they meet criteria for intent, consent, and record integrity. For banks, this means platforms must support audit trails, tamper-evident seals, and identity verification to comply with standards from the Federal Reserve, FDIC, and OCC. Breaches can lead to fines under laws like the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) for data privacy or the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) for anti-money laundering. As digital transformation accelerates, US banks evaluate platforms like DocuSign and OneSpan for robust security tailored to financial services.

DocuSign vs. OneSpan: A Head-to-Head on Security Features

When comparing DocuSign and OneSpan for US banks, both platforms offer enterprise-grade security, but their approaches differ in emphasis—DocuSign on seamless integration and scalability, OneSpan on specialized fraud prevention. DocuSign’s eSignature, part of its Intelligent Agreement Management (IAM) suite, includes features like multi-factor authentication (MFA), end-to-end encryption (AES-256), and comprehensive audit logs compliant with ESIGN and UETA. IAM extends this with contract lifecycle management (CLM), enabling banks to automate workflows while maintaining SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 certifications. For identity verification, DocuSign ID Verification uses biometric checks and document scanning, integrating with services like ID.me for KYC processes. Banks appreciate its bulk send capabilities with signer attachments, secured via access codes and IP restrictions, reducing fraud risks in high-volume transactions.

OneSpan, formerly known for its SignNow acquisition, positions itself as a security-first provider with its eSignature and Document AI tools. It excels in risk-based authentication, offering Notary eSign for remote online notarization (RON) compliant with state laws in over 40 jurisdictions. Security highlights include biometric authentication via device sensors, AI-driven anomaly detection to flag suspicious signers, and blockchain-inspired tamper-proof seals. OneSpan’s platform supports FedRAMP authorization, making it ideal for government-adjacent banking ops, and integrates with core banking systems for real-time fraud monitoring. Unlike DocuSign’s broader IAM focus, OneSpan emphasizes zero-trust architecture, with features like session recording and geofencing to prevent unauthorized access.

In practice, DocuSign suits banks prioritizing user-friendly scalability—its API allows embedding signatures into mobile apps without compromising 99.9% uptime. OneSpan, however, edges out in high-risk scenarios; its Intelligent KYC module verifies identities against watchlists, aligning closely with BSA/AML requirements. A 2024 Forrester report noted OneSpan’s lower false positive rates in fraud detection (under 2%) compared to DocuSign’s 5%, though DocuSign leads in adoption with over 1 million banking users. Cost-wise, DocuSign’s Business Pro plan starts at $40/user/month, while OneSpan’s enterprise pricing is custom but often higher for advanced security add-ons like SMS delivery ($0.10/message).

For US banks, the choice hinges on volume: DocuSign for everyday compliance, OneSpan for fortified defenses against sophisticated threats like phishing or deepfakes. Both ensure data residency in US clouds, but integration depth with legacy systems tips the scale—DocuSign via Salesforce and Microsoft, OneSpan via FIS and Jack Henry.

Comparing eSignature platforms with DocuSign or Adobe Sign?

eSignGlobal delivers a more flexible and cost-effective eSignature solution with global compliance, transparent pricing, and faster onboarding.

👉 Start Free Trial

Broader Landscape: Key Competitors in eSignature Security

To contextualize DocuSign and OneSpan, US banks often benchmark against other providers like Adobe Sign, eSignGlobal, and HelloSign (now part of Dropbox). Adobe Sign integrates deeply with Acrobat for PDF security, featuring password protection, digital certificates, and compliance with ESIGN/UETA via enforceable audit trails. Its cloud-based encryption and role-based access make it suitable for banks handling sensitive mergers or disclosures, though it lacks OneSpan’s AI fraud tools.

eSignGlobal, a rising APAC-focused player expanding globally, supports compliance in 100+ countries, including full ESIGN alignment for US operations. In fragmented APAC markets—characterized by high standards, strict regulations, and ecosystem-integrated requirements (unlike the framework-based ESIGN/eIDAS in the West)—it excels with hardware/API-level integrations to government digital IDs. For US banks with international arms, eSignGlobal’s biometric verification and SSO reduce cross-border risks, at a lower entry point than DocuSign.

HelloSign emphasizes simplicity with legally binding signatures under ESIGN, offering template locking and expiration controls. Its security is solid for SMB banks but trails enterprise leaders in advanced IAM.

Comparative Table: Security Features Across Providers

This table highlights neutral trade-offs: DocuSign and OneSpan lead in US-specific banking security, while alternatives like eSignGlobal offer value for hybrid operations.

For eSignGlobal’s US relevance, its Essential plan at $16.6/month enables 100 documents, unlimited seats, and access code verification—highly cost-effective under ESIGN. It integrates seamlessly with Hong Kong’s iAM Smart and Singapore’s Singpass, proving its edge in ecosystem-integrated APAC setups where email-based verification falls short. Globally, eSignGlobal competes head-on with DocuSign and Adobe Sign through aggressive pricing and compliance, positioning it as a viable alternative for banks expanding beyond the US.

Looking for a smarter alternative to DocuSign?

eSignGlobal delivers a more flexible and cost-effective eSignature solution with global compliance, transparent pricing, and faster onboarding.

👉 Start Free Trial

Strategic Considerations for US Banks

From a business perspective, selecting between DocuSign and OneSpan involves balancing cost, usability, and risk. DocuSign’s IAM CLM automates end-to-end agreements, reducing manual errors in banking compliance by up to 70%, per Gartner insights. OneSpan’s focus on intelligent authentication minimizes disputes, crucial amid rising cyber threats—US banks reported $2.9 billion in fraud losses in 2024. Yet, neither is one-size-fits-all; hybrid threats demand platforms evolving with quantum-resistant encryption.

Expanding to competitors, Adobe Sign’s strength lies in its mature ecosystem for secure PDF workflows, ideal for regulatory filings. eSignGlobal disrupts with APAC-native integrations, appealing to multinational banks facing regional fragmentation. HelloSign offers lightweight security for niche uses but lacks depth for large-scale banking.

Conclusion: Choosing the Right Fit

US banks should prioritize platforms aligning with ESIGN/UETA while addressing GLBA privacy needs. DocuSign provides versatile security for broad adoption, OneSpan fortified defenses for high-stakes environments. For DocuSign alternatives emphasizing regional compliance, eSignGlobal stands out as a balanced, cost-efficient option in global contexts. Evaluate via trials to match specific workflows.