QwilrHelp your worst rep send your best proposals.
vs
SigneasySign effortlessly, manage contracts intelligently.
Comparison · Proposals & Contracts · weekly run Nov 2
Qwilr vs Signeasy
Which one do AI engines recommend, and how do they differ on price, fit and features?
The short answer
Qwilr is the stronger AI pick in Proposals & Contracts: it has a visibility score of 28.3 versus 0.7 for Signeasy.
Choose Qwilr if…
- You want the brand AI engines rank higher (28.3 vs 0.7)
- You need SOC 2 Type II or PCI-DSS coverage
- Interactive, web-based proposals
- Polished, visually striking proposal presentation
Choose Signeasy if…
- You want a lower entry price ($10 vs $35)
- You need ESIGN & UETA or eIDAS or SOC 2 or GDPR or HIPAA or 21 CFR Part 11 coverage
AI visibility side by side
Latest weekly run · Nov 2
| Metric | Qwilr | Signeasy |
|---|---|---|
| Visibility score | 28.3% | 0.7% |
| Change vs last week | New | New |
| Rank in Proposals & Contracts | #4 | #40 |
| Share of voice | 7.2% | 0.2% |
| Mentions this run | 37 | 1 |
| Positive in AI answers | 51% | — |
The stronger value in each row is marked with a ✓.
Visibility score trend
Weekly runs over the last 60 days
Qwilr 0pp · Signeasy 0pp over 0 weekly runs.
Engine by engine
Qwilr leads on 3 of 3 engines
ChatGPT
AI Mode
Perplexity
QwilrSigneasy
Head to head in AI answers
0 engine answers name both brands
0Qwilr ranked higher
0Signeasy ranked higher
Features, pricing & fit
| Dimension | Qwilr | Signeasy |
|---|---|---|
| Pricing model | Per seat | Per seat |
| Entry price | $35 per seat / mo | $10 per seat / mo |
| Free plan | No · 14-day trial | No · 14-day trial |
| Deployment | Web-based, web-native software | Web, mobile and API |
| Compliance | SOC 2 Type II, PCI-DSS | ESIGN & UETA, eIDAS, SOC 2, GDPR, HIPAA, 21 CFR Part 11 |
| Support | Email support, Help center, Chat support, Training sessions | Email support, Chat support, Priority support, Dedicated success manager |
| Founded | 2014 | 2010 |
| Headquarters | Redfern, New South Wales, Australia | Dallas, Texas |
| Employees | 51–200 | 51–200 |
| Funding | Series A (AirTree Ventures) · $9M raised | Series B |
| Best for | Sales teams that send proposals, quotes and contracts and want to track buyer engagement. | Teams that need eSignatures together with a contract repository and renewal tracking, such as finance, HR, sales, legal operations and IT. |
Plans side by side
Qwilr
Starter$35user/month, billed annually ($49 monthly)
Growth$55user/month, annual only, min 5 users
Scale$75user/month, annual only, min 10 users
Signeasy
Personal$10month/seat
Business$20month/seat
Business Pro$30month/seat
Build Your Plan (eSign)Customcustom
ICM Core$45month/seat, minimum 3 seats
ICM Pro$60month/seat, minimum 3 seats
Build Your Plan (ICM)Customcustom
Pros and cons
Themes from the AI answers that mention each brand
Qwilr
- Interactive, web-based proposals
- Polished, visually striking proposal presentation
- Frequently shortlisted and highly rated among proposal tools
- Lower cost with annual billing
- 14-day free trial available
Signeasy
Profile in progress.
Data collected ·ChatGPT, Perplexity, Google AI Mode·coverage 100%·next run
Cite as: SlateIndex, “Qwilr vs Signeasy”, https://slateindex.ai/compare/qwilr-vs-signeasy, data of Nov 2, 2026. Licence: CC BY 4.0.