How AI Search Is Recommending eSignature Software: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

DocuSign remains the category leader in October 2026 with 70.4% valid recommendation coverage, extending its lead over second-place PandaDoc to 8.8 points. That gap is the widest the benchmark has recorded between first and second place across the July-to-October series, and it widened even as DocuSign's coverage moved up for a second consecutive month. The movement from September 2026's 64.8% to October 2026's 70.4% is DocuSign's largest single-month gain in the series, though the benchmark still classifies DocuSign as stable because the movement does not exceed its variation threshold.

The strongest upward mover on a baseline basis is Signeasy, which rose from 6.5% valid recommendation coverage in July 2026 to 11.4% in October 2026, a gain of 4.9 points that the benchmark classifies as significant. Signeasy now holds a three-month upward streak, the longest in the category, and its top-three rate rose from 1.9% to 5.3% over the same period. Signeasy recorded 52 valid recommendations in October 2026 but no rank-one placements.

The sharpest decliner on a baseline basis is Dropbox Sign, down 8.7 points from 54.5% in July 2026 to 45.8% in October 2026, a movement the benchmark classifies as significant. Zoho Inventory also registers as a significant decliner, falling from 1.7% coverage in July 2026 to no measured coverage in October 2026, though the absolute counts are small. Against the prior month, the category was largely quiet: no brand moved beyond normal variation from September to October 2026.

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations across the benchmark's defined AI/search surface universe. In July 2026 those prompts contained 421 unique questions, of which 800 mentioned a tracked brand or competitor, 788 were relevant and 12 were irrelevant. In October 2026 the same run contained 496 unique questions, again 800 brand or competitor mentions, with 785 relevant and 15 irrelevant. The public metrics use the 415 qualified observations in July 2026 and the 456 qualified observations in October 2026 that survive both qualification stages.

Key Findings

AI Response Inconsistency Alerts

Questions This Section Answers

• Which eSignature brands had the most factual conflicts across AI platforms?
• What did AI systems disagree about regarding free plans and pricing?

The benchmark detected 22 critical or high-severity factual inconsistencies across four tracked companies, surfaced across five AI platforms: ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Google AI Mode, and Google AI Overviews. These conflicts describe material differences in what AI systems tell buyers about the category, most notably around free-plan eligibility and pricing. The conflicts are recorded as factual inconsistencies, not as evidence of intent or causation.

DocuSign

Eleven high-severity conflicts were detected for DocuSign, spanning free-plan availability, free-plan sending limits, and monthly price, and involving all five platforms.

When asked "What is the cheapest way to get DocuSign?", ChatGPT stated that DocuSign generally does not offer a permanently free plan for sending agreements, citing the DocuSign pricing and eSignature product pages, while Google AI Mode stated that DocuSign has a free plan limited to 3 documents per month, citing a Reddit thread and third-party pricing guides. The two claims cannot both be true.

When asked "What is the cheapest electronic signature service?", Google AI Overviews stated that DocuSign has a free plan allowing users to sign and request basic signatures, while Copilot stated that DocuSign has no free tier. Google AI Overviews drew on third-party comparison pages; Copilot referenced a pricing review and a comparison site.

When asked "How do I get an eSignature for free?", Gemini stated that a free account typically lets a user send up to 3 documents total for signature, citing DocuSign's own signer and mobile pages, while Copilot stated that DocuSign has no free tier beyond paid plans or trials, citing a free-software guide and G2.

When asked "Is there a cheaper Docusign?", Gemini stated that DocuSign has a Free Plan allowing 1 user and 3 signature requests per month, while Copilot stated that DocuSign has no permanent free plan. Gemini drew on alternative-comparison blogs; Copilot referenced a cheaper-alternatives guide.

When asked "Are signature apps free?", Gemini stated that DocuSign has a free plan capped at 3 requests per month, while Copilot stated that DocuSign's "free" is actually a trial, not a permanent plan. The same question was asked a second time in the collection and produced the same Gemini claim alongside a ChatGPT claim that DocuSign currently has no permanent free plan for sending, with its Personal plan paid and trials available.

When asked "What is the cheapest way to get DocuSign?", ChatGPT stated there is no free plan for sending agreements, while Copilot stated a free plan allows roughly 3 envelopes per month.

When asked "How to use DocuSign without paying?", Gemini stated that DocuSign's free plan allows sending documents for others to sign, capped at 3 lifetime sends, while Copilot stated that sending documents requires a paid plan after a short trial and that the free account cannot send documents. Gemini cited a Signeasy explainer, DocuSign's signer page, and DocuSign's free-account page; Copilot cited DocuSign's free-account page, a free-electronic-signature guide, and a free signing page.

When asked "What is the best document signing software?", ChatGPT stated that the Personal plan starts at $11 per month annually and Standard is $30 per user per month, while Google AI Mode stated a range from $10 to $15 per month. ChatGPT cited the DocuSign pricing page, an Adobe business features page, and a Dropbox Sign features page; Google AI Mode cited DocuSign's mobile page, a Reddit thread, and a Zapier roundup.

When asked "How can I sign my document for free?", Google AI Mode stated that DocuSign offers a free account to upload, sign, and send documents, while Copilot stated that DocuSign advertises "free" but only allows 3 total signatures before requiring payment.

When asked "Is eSignature free?", Gemini stated that DocuSign allows users to create a free account to upload and sign documents at no cost, while Copilot stated that DocuSign's "free" plan is actually a 30-day trial, not a permanent free tier.

PandaDoc

Eight high-severity conflicts were detected for PandaDoc, all involving free-plan document limits or monthly price, and involving ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Google AI Mode, and Google AI Overviews.

When asked "What is the free alternative to Docusign?", Gemini stated that PandaDoc offers a free plan allowing unlimited document uploads and e-signatures, while ChatGPT stated that the free plan allows 5 documents per month, or 60 per year, citing the PandaDoc pricing page and Dropbox Sign and SignWell resources.

When asked "What is the best free e-signature app?", Gemini stated that PandaDoc's free plan allows unlimited document uploads and signatures with unlimited signing volume, while ChatGPT stated that the free tier allows only a limited number of documents each month.

When asked "What is the best alternative to SignWell?", Gemini stated that PandaDoc's starting price is approximately $35 per month, while ChatGPT stated that the Starter plan is $19 per user per month. The $19 figure aligns with annual billing and the $35 figure with monthly billing on the same plan, according to the flagged PandaDoc support page, but the two responses were surfaced as conflicting starting prices without that distinction.

When asked "What is the cheapest electronic signature service?", Google AI Overviews stated that PandaDoc Free eSign offers unlimited legally binding signatures at no cost, while Copilot stated that the PandaDoc free tier is limited to 60 documents per year.

When asked "Is there a free eSign software?", Google AI Overviews stated that the PandaDoc free plan allows signing and sending up to 60 documents per year, citing PandaDoc's own free-software page, while Copilot stated that the PandaDoc free plan offers unlimited documents with basic features.

When asked "Are there any free eSignature services?", Copilot stated that the free plan includes up to 5 documents per month, while Google AI Mode stated that the plan allows upload and send of an unlimited number of free electronic signatures. The same question produced a second conflict, with Google AI Overviews stating up to 60 documents signed and sent per year on the free plan while Google AI Mode again stated unlimited free electronic signatures.

When asked "Is there something cheaper than Docusign?", ChatGPT stated the free plan allows 60 documents per year, citing the Zoho Sign, Dropbox Sign, and PandaDoc pricing pages, while Gemini stated an unlimited free e-sign plan with restrictions on advanced templates.

Dropbox Sign

Two high-severity conflicts were detected for Dropbox Sign, both on free-plan availability and both involving Google AI Overviews against another platform.

When asked "How much does an eSignature cost?", Gemini stated that Dropbox Sign is listed among competitors offering restricted free plans of 3 to 5 sends per month, while Google AI Overviews stated that Dropbox Sign has no free plan tier. Google AI Overviews drew on third-party pricing comparison pages.

The same question surfaced a second conflict, with Copilot stating "Dropbox Sign Free: $0 (3 docs/month)" while Google AI Overviews again stated that Dropbox Sign has no free plan tier.

Adobe Acrobat Sign

One high-severity conflict was detected for Adobe Acrobat Sign, involving ChatGPT and Copilot on free-plan request limits.

When asked "Is there a free eSign software?", ChatGPT stated that Adobe Acrobat Sign offers a 30-day free trial that is primarily a trial rather than a permanently free sending plan, while Copilot stated that the Adobe Acrobat free plan allows 2 requests per 30 days.

Benchmark Context

Questions This Section Answers

• How many prompt observations qualified for the benchmark in October 2026?
• What category-level metrics changed between July and October 2026?

The report separates the raw collection universe from the qualified analysis set. Brand-level recommendation percentages are calculated within the qualified benchmark set.

This qualification stages set the denominator used throughout the rest of the benchmark. The table below summarizes the resulting category-level metrics for each month.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The recommendation-shaped answer share climbed from 48.4% in July 2026 to 62.5% in October 2026, and the valid recommendation shortlist share rose from 69.9% to 77.2%. The intermediate months moved within that range: the recommendation-shaped share sat at 38.5% in August 2026 and 39.6% in September 2026 before the October jump, while the valid shortlist share held between 68.5% and 69.4% across those same months. The category produced materially more recommendation-shaped output in October 2026 than at any point earlier in the series.

AI Recommendation Trend

Questions This Section Answers

• Which eSignature brands rank highest in AI recommendation coverage?
• Which brands gained or lost the most coverage across the series?
• Where does the leader's gap over second place stand now?

DocuSign Extends Its Lead as the Category's Largest Gap Widens

DocuSign holds the widest lead over second place the series has recorded, while PandaDoc and Adobe Acrobat Sign remain the only other brands above 50% coverage and the field below fourth place stays thinly covered.

No brand exceeded normal month-to-month variation from the prior month, and the category-level change across the July-to-October series came from the combination of several small movements rather than a single dominant one. DocuSign's gain and Signeasy's gain were partly offset by declines at Dropbox Sign, SignNow, Adobe Acrobat Sign, and PandaDoc, leaving the leader ahead of the field by a wider margin than at any earlier point in the series.

What Changed This Month

Questions This Section Answers

• Did DocuSign's gain come from broader presence or stronger placement?
• Why is Signeasy's rise classified as significant despite small counts?
• Why did Dropbox Sign's coverage fall while its top-three rate improved?

DocuSign: Leader Pulls Away

DocuSign's valid recommendation coverage rose from 66.3% in July 2026 to 70.4% in October 2026, a gain of 4.1 points that remains within normal month-to-month variation across the full series. The movement is sharper on a prior-to-current basis: the brand climbed 5.6 points from September 2026's 64.8%, its largest single-month move in the series and the second consecutive month of gain.

DocuSign's top-three recommendation rate rose from 59.5% in July 2026 to 66.7% in October 2026, a gain of 7.2 points over the same period. The brand was present in 451 of 456 qualified observations in October 2026, with 321 valid recommendations and 304 top-three placements.

The distinction to notice: DocuSign's coverage gain and its top-three gain tell slightly different stories. Coverage moved within normal variation across the baseline-to-current period, while the top-three placement rate rose by a larger margin in percentage-point terms (7.2 points versus 4.1 points for coverage), suggesting the gain concentrated in placement rather than in raw presence. The leader's rank-one rate held at 54.2%, up 1.4 points from July 2026, and its presence was already close to saturation at 98.9% raw mention presence.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt families drove the top-three gain, and did the improvement concentrate on specific AI surfaces or on comparison-oriented questions?

Signeasy: The Category's Only Significant Riser

Signeasy's valid recommendation coverage rose from 6.5% in July 2026 to 11.4% in October 2026, a gain of 4.9 points that the benchmark classifies as significant. The brand holds a three-month upward streak, the longest in the category, and its movement from September 2026's 9.0% added a further 2.4 points.

Signeasy's top-three rate rose from 1.9% in July 2026 to 5.3% in October 2026, a gain of 3.4 points over the same period. The brand recorded 52 valid recommendations in October 2026, up from 27 in July 2026, and was present in 74 of 456 qualified observations. Its rank-one rate fell from 0.7% in July 2026 to no measured placements in October 2026.

The distinction to notice: Signeasy is converting a larger share of its mentions into valid recommendations, while its top-three placements grow more slowly. Its raw mention presence rose from 12.0% to 16.2% across the series, a gain of 4.2 points, compared with a 4.9-point gain in valid recommendation coverage and a 3.4-point gain in top-three placement. The absolute counts remain small relative to the leaders, so a movement of this size carries more weight than the percentage alone suggests.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which question types drive the sustained coverage and top-three gain, and what separates those prompts from the ones where Signeasy never reaches first position?

Dropbox Sign: Significant Baseline Decline

Dropbox Sign's valid recommendation coverage fell from 54.5% in July 2026 to 45.8% in October 2026, a decline of 8.7 points that the benchmark classifies as significant. The movement from September 2026's 44.6% was a gain of 1.2 points, within normal variation, so the baseline decline was accumulated earlier in the series rather than in the current month.

Presence fell from 69.6% raw mention presence in July 2026 to 60.5% in October 2026, a drop of 9.1 points over the same period. The brand was present in 276 of 456 qualified observations in October 2026, with 209 valid recommendations. Its top-three rate moved the other way, rising from 17.8% in July 2026 to 26.8% in October 2026, a gain of 9.0 points.

The distinction to notice: Dropbox Sign is being mentioned less often but placed higher when mentioned. Recommendation coverage and placement are moving in opposite directions, which means the coverage loss comes from reduced breadth rather than weaker standing within the answers that still include the brand. The benchmark also records that the gap between Dropbox Sign and DocuSign has widened every month of the series, from 11.8 points in July 2026 to 24.6 points in October 2026, a pattern of widening separation between the two brands rather than a single-month event.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which surfaces or prompt types stopped producing a Dropbox Sign mention, and did the top-three gain concentrate in the narrower set of prompts that still include the brand?

Adobe Acrobat Sign: Rank-One Gain Against Softer Coverage

Adobe Acrobat Sign's valid recommendation coverage moved from 58.8% in July 2026 to 55.9% in October 2026, a decline of 2.9 points that remains within normal variation. The movement from September 2026's 57.3% was a further 1.4-point decline, also within normal variation.

The brand's rank-one recommendation rate rose from 2.2% in July 2026 to 6.1% in October 2026, a gain of 3.9 points over the same period. Its top-three rate rose 1.1 points over the same period, from 43.6% to 44.7%. Adobe Acrobat Sign was present in 359 of 456 qualified observations in October 2026, with 255 valid recommendations and 28 rank-one placements.

The distinction to notice: Adobe Acrobat Sign's first-position share nearly tripled while its overall coverage softened slightly. The gain in rank-one placement came against a comparatively small top-three movement (1.1 points), which points to a shift in how the brand is positioned within answers rather than to a change in how often it appears.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompts produced the new rank-one placements, and did the coverage softening occur on the same surfaces or on different ones?

Zoho Inventory: Small-Count Decline to No Measured Coverage

Zoho Inventory's valid recommendation coverage fell from 1.7% in July 2026 to no measured coverage in October 2026, a decline of 1.7 points that the benchmark classifies as significant. The brand recorded no measured presence in October 2026, down from 7 qualified observations in July 2026 and 3 in September 2026.

Zoho Inventory had 7 valid recommendations in July 2026, 2 in September 2026, and none in October 2026. No supporting metrics are available for the current month because the brand has no measured presence.

The distinction to notice: The movement is classified as significant, but the underlying counts are very small. A swing of a few observations moves the percentage by more than a point, and the brand's baseline coverage of 1.7% sat near the measurement floor.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Did prompt variation, a change in the tracked set, or genuine brand substitution account for the loss of the remaining observations?

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

Questions This Section Answers

• Which buyer-intent clusters produced qualified eSignature recommendations?
• Why can't the benchmark yet explain how AI frames pricing or comparisons?

In July 2026 and October 2026, all qualified observations fell into the Brand Recommendation class. No qualified observations were recorded in the Pricing & Value or Multi-Brand Comparison classes in either month, so the public benchmark cannot yet answer questions about how AI systems frame cost, value, or head-to-head trade-offs in this category. The raw response-type distributions include pricing analyses and comparison analyses in both months, and the inconsistency alerts above show that pricing and free-plan questions are actively producing conflicting AI answers, but none of those responses qualified as valid recommendation shortlists in their respective clusters.

Brand Opportunity Summary

Questions This Section Answers

• Which eSignature brands need attention and what diagnostic should they run?

The benchmark identifies where attention is warranted; a company-level analysis is needed to explain why.

Evidence Behind the Benchmark

The aggregate metrics are built from prompt-level observations (query, surface, recommendation outcome, rank, sentiment, and citations where exposed). Company-level analysis can go deeper into prompt, competitor, surface, and evidence patterns. Source presence is not automatically treated as proof of causation.

About This Benchmark

This report is part of the LLM Authority Index AI Visibility Market Discovery research program.

• AI Visibility Industry Market Methodology
• AI Visibility Industry Market Metrics
• AI Visibility Industry Market Standards

Report-Specific Interpretation Notes

• Qualified observations moved from 415 in July 2026 to 456 in October 2026, and the public benchmark uses this qualified set rather than the 800 raw prompt-surface observations for all brand-level percentages.
• Small-count movements, such as Zoho Inventory's decline to no measured coverage and Foxit eSign's and GetAccept's low single-digit coverage, should be read with caution given the narrow observation base behind them.
• The brand tracking set changed across the series: Zoho Inventory appeared in the named company list in July, September, and October 2026, while Zoho Sign appeared in the named list in August 2026 and registers no measured coverage in the months either side.
• Movement between months identifies changes worth investigating; it does not by itself establish the cause of those changes.
• The AI response inconsistency alerts describe conflicting factual claims surfaced across platforms. They are recorded as inconsistencies, not as proof that any single claim is correct.

Next Step

The Public Benchmark Shows Where a Brand Is Winning or Losing. A Company-Level Audit Shows Why.

The aggregate percentages in this report sit on top of specific questions that matter for commercial action: which high-intent prompts a brand wins, which competitor takes the recommendation when a brand loses, what attributes AI systems associate with each option, and which external sources shape those answers. A brand that knows its coverage rate still needs to know which prompts drive that rate and which surfaces favor or penalize it.

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy.

Request an AI visibility audit