Is Fill actually HIPAA compliant?

Fill markets HIPAA-ready signing, but for regulated healthcare data you should confirm a signed BAA and configuration with the vendor. Established platforms like DocuSign and Adobe Acrobat Sign offer well-documented HIPAA-eligible options.

Why does Fill rate lower than its alternatives?

Its 4.2 rating reflects gaps in polish, support, and feature depth. Tools like Xodo Sign (4.8), Signeasy (4.7), and SignNow (4.6) score higher for similar or lower prices.

What's the best cheap alternative to Fill?

SignNow ($8/mo) and Xodo Sign ($10/mo) are similarly priced but better rated, offering more reliability and support.

Which alternative is best for sending proposals?

PandaDoc, because it pairs e-signatures with proposal creation, quoting, and engagement analytics.

Do these alternatives offer unlimited signing?

SignNow includes unlimited signing per seat, and several others offer high or unlimited limits on business tiers, matching Fill's main selling point with better reliability.

Fill Alternatives (2026): 8 Additional Options for Reliable E-Signing

Fill is a simple, low-cost e-signature tool at $9.99/mo that markets HIPAA-ready signing and unlimited requests, an appealing combination for small teams and healthcare-adjacent use cases on a budget.

Its lower 4.2 rating, however, points to gaps in polish, support, and feature depth that show up as teams grow. If you want a more established platform, richer integrations, or stronger workflow tooling, the alternatives below are worth a close look.

TL;DR

Fill is cheap and offers unlimited requests plus HIPAA-ready signing, but rates lower on polish and support.
DocuSign and Adobe Acrobat Sign offer proven reliability and compliance depth.
SignNow and Xodo Sign match Fill's low price with higher ratings.
PandaDoc adds proposals and quotes for sales-driven signing.

Why look for a Fill alternative?

A 4.2 rating suggests gaps in polish, support, and reliability versus higher-scoring tools.
Integrations are narrower than DocuSign, PandaDoc, or Adobe.
It's a smaller brand, so external signers may be less familiar with it.
Advanced workflow routing and proposal features are limited.
Teams with strict compliance needs may want a more established, certified platform.

Fill alternatives at a glance

Tool	Starting price	Rating	Best for
DocuSign	$11/mo	★ 4.5	Teams wanting the most trusted, integrated signature.
Adobe Acrobat Sign	$16.99/mo	★ 4.6	Compliance-minded teams that also edit PDFs heavily.
SignNow	$8/mo	★ 4.6	Budget teams pushing high document volumes.
Xodo Sign	$10/mo	★ 4.8	Small businesses wanting low-cost, dependable signing.
PandaDoc	$19/mo	★ 4.7	Sales teams sending proposals and quotes.
Signeasy	$10/mo	★ 4.7	Mobile-heavy teams that sign on the go.
Foxit eSign	$10/mo	★ 4.7	SMBs wanting lots of features cheaply.
Signaturely	From $20/user/mo billed annually ($25 monthly); free plan covers 3 documents/month.	—	Very small teams that sign occasionally and want a free option.

1. DocuSign

Best for proven, recognized, compliant signing

★ 4.5· G2$11/mo

What it does better than Fill

DocuSign brings proven reliability, deep compliance (including HIPAA-eligible configurations on higher tiers), and the broadest integration catalog. Its brand recognition removes friction with any signer. For teams that need dependability at scale it's the safe standard.

Where Fill still wins

Fill is far cheaper at entry and offers unlimited requests on a low-cost plan.

Best for: Teams wanting the most trusted, integrated signature.

Visit DocuSign Full review

2. Adobe Acrobat Sign

Best for compliance plus PDF editing

★ 4.6· Capterra$16.99/mo

What it does better than Fill

Acrobat Sign combines full PDF editing with signing, native Microsoft 365 integration, and enterprise-grade compliance suitable for regulated data. It's a far more established platform than Fill. Document-heavy teams get creation and signing in one place.

Where Fill still wins

It's much pricier and more complex than Fill, with confusing licensing tiers.

Best for: Compliance-minded teams that also edit PDFs heavily.

Visit Adobe Acrobat Sign Full review

3. SignNow

Best for affordable high-volume signing

★ 4.6· G2$8/mo

What it does better than Fill

SignNow starts at $8/mo with unlimited signing and a higher 4.6 rating than Fill, plus strong bulk send and airSlate automation. It offers HIPAA-compliant configurations on business plans. For budget teams it's more reliable value.

Where Fill still wins

Fill's entry plan is marginally cheaper if you only need very basic signing.

Best for: Budget teams pushing high document volumes.

Visit SignNow Full review

4. Xodo Sign

Best for dependable low-cost signing

★ 4.8· G2$10/mo

What it does better than Fill

Xodo Sign costs about the same as Fill but scores far higher (4.8) for usability and reliability, backed by Apryse's document technology. Its clean interface and API cover most SMB needs. It's the safer low-cost choice.

Where Fill still wins

Fill advertises unlimited requests on its entry plan, which can appeal to very high-volume budget users.

Best for: Small businesses wanting low-cost, dependable signing.

Visit Xodo Sign Full review

5. PandaDoc

Best for proposals, quotes, and contracts

★ 4.7· G2$19/mo

What it does better than Fill

PandaDoc adds proposal creation, quoting, and engagement analytics on top of signing, a workflow Fill doesn't offer. It integrates with major CRMs and is a far more established platform. Sales teams get an end-to-end tool.

Where Fill still wins

Fill is much cheaper and simpler when you just need a signature.

Best for: Sales teams sending proposals and quotes.

Visit PandaDoc Full review

6. Signeasy

Best for mobile-first signing

★ 4.7· G2$10/mo

What it does better than Fill

Signeasy is mobile-first with integrations to Google, Microsoft, and Salesforce and a strong 4.7 rating, well above Fill. It matches Fill's low price while feeling far more polished on phones and tablets. Contract workflows suit field teams.

Where Fill still wins

Fill's unlimited-request positioning may edge it for very high-volume, ultra-budget users.

Best for: Mobile-heavy teams that sign on the go.

Visit Signeasy Full review

7. Foxit eSign

Best for an affordable, feature-rich suite

★ 4.7· Capterra$10/mo

What it does better than Fill

Foxit eSign offers templates, bulk send, and reusable workflows at $10/mo with a strong 4.7 rating and Foxit's mature PDF platform behind it. It's more capable and better reviewed than Fill for a similar price. Reliability is a clear step up.

Where Fill still wins

Fill's entry plan is marginally cheaper for the most basic needs.

Best for: SMBs wanting lots of features cheaply.

Visit Foxit eSign Full review

8. Signaturely

Best for the simplest free signing

From $20/user/mo billed annually ($25 monthly); free plan covers 3 documents/month.

What it does better than Fill

Signaturely offers a clean, beginner-friendly interface and a free tier for occasional signing, giving low-volume teams a polished, low-commitment start. Non-technical signers pick it up instantly. It's an easy upgrade in usability over Fill.

Where Fill still wins

Its free tier caps documents and its business plan costs more than Fill, with fewer unlimited-volume options.

Best for: Very small teams that sign occasionally and want a free option.

How to choose the right Fill alternative

Choose DocuSign if you need proven, recognized signing with deep compliance.
Choose Adobe Acrobat Sign if you need compliance plus heavy PDF editing.
Choose SignNow if you sign in high volume and want reliable low-cost signing.
Choose Xodo Sign if you want a well-rated, low-cost signer.
Choose PandaDoc if your documents are proposals and quotes.
Choose Signeasy if most signing happens on mobile.
Choose Foxit eSign if you want maximum features per dollar.
Choose Signaturely if you sign occasionally and want a free, simple tool.

How we evaluated

Feature mapping — we compare each alternative's capabilities against the tool it's replacing, job for job.
Real pricing — starting prices come from each vendor's public pricing page, labeled by tier.
User sentiment — ratings and review counts are aggregated from third-party platforms (Capterra, G2) and shown with their source.
Right-sizing — we weigh which team size, budget, and technical comfort each option actually fits.
Independence — we don't sell a competing product, and affiliate relationships never change our picks.

Frequently asked questions

Is Fill actually HIPAA compliant?: Fill markets HIPAA-ready signing, but for regulated healthcare data you should confirm a signed BAA and configuration with the vendor. Established platforms like DocuSign and Adobe Acrobat Sign offer well-documented HIPAA-eligible options.
Why does Fill rate lower than its alternatives?: Its 4.2 rating reflects gaps in polish, support, and feature depth. Tools like Xodo Sign (4.8), Signeasy (4.7), and SignNow (4.6) score higher for similar or lower prices.
What's the best cheap alternative to Fill?: SignNow ($8/mo) and Xodo Sign ($10/mo) are similarly priced but better rated, offering more reliability and support.
Which alternative is best for sending proposals?: PandaDoc, because it pairs e-signatures with proposal creation, quoting, and engagement analytics.
Do these alternatives offer unlimited signing?: SignNow includes unlimited signing per seat, and several others offer high or unlimited limits on business tiers, matching Fill's main selling point with better reliability.

Still weighing your options?

Answer a few quick questions and we'll recommend the right tools for your business, budget, and team.

Build your stack Fill review