Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
01/07/2026 2:08 am
TL;DR: Financial services organisations are switching eSignature providers less for missing features than for unpredictable pricing, weak support, and workflows that no longer fit changing business demands, according to OneSpan. The real test is whether the partnership sustains secure, scalable digital agreements without forcing teams to absorb hidden complexity.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by OneSpan: What makes a good eSignature business partner? 4 signals to evaluate
By the numbers:
- 90% of IT leaders say properly managing NHIs is essential for a successful zero-trust implementation.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations evaluate whether an eSignature workflow is trustworthy?
A: They should assess the full journey, not just the signing step.
Q: Why do organisations switch eSignature providers even when the platform still works?
A: They usually switch because the operating relationship no longer fits.
Q: What breaks when eSignature migrations simply copy the old workflow?
A: Copying the old workflow preserves legacy debt, brittle approvals, and outdated assumptions about how trust should be established.
Practitioner guidance
- Map eSignature workflows to identity and risk owners Identify who owns onboarding, lending, servicing, and other signing journeys, then tie each flow to an explicit risk and assurance requirement.
- Model total cost beyond transaction volume Include API integrations, feature gating, support effort, and regional rollout in your cost review so pricing reflects the real operating footprint of the workflow.
- Review trust controls by transaction class Set different assurance expectations for high-value or regulated transactions than for lower-risk digital forms, and document why each control exists.
What's in the full article
OneSpan's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- Vendor-side framing of how financial services buyers evaluate eSignature partners during renewal and migration.
- Detailed discussion of pricing transparency questions, including what costs can change as workflows expand.
- Expanded guidance on balancing security, usability, and signer trust across regulated transactions.
- Practical migration considerations for organisations replacing legacy signing workflows.
👉 Read OneSpan's article on what makes a good eSignature business partner →
eSignature pricing, trust, and support: what IAM teams should assess?
Explore further
01/07/2026 2:30 am
eSignature governance is really identity governance in customer-facing form. The article makes clear that the product debate is not only about document signing, but about how regulated workflows are operated, supported, and changed over time. That is an access and assurance problem, not just a procurement problem. Practitioners should treat eSignature as part of the broader identity control plane.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 90% of IT leaders say properly managing NHIs is essential for a successful zero-trust implementation, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, which shows how often identity programmes still lack basic inventory confidence.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own eSignature governance in a regulated organisation?
A: Ownership should sit across business, security, compliance, and architecture, because eSignature is part of a regulated identity journey rather than a standalone tool. The governance model needs clear decision rights for workflow design, exception handling, support escalation, and migration. Without shared ownership, the organisation ends up optimising the tool instead of the process.
👉 Read our full editorial: eSignature partner fit matters more than features in financial services
