Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

Baffle vs Signicat

Baffle logo

Baffle

Cybersecurity

Transparent proxy that encrypts, tokenises and masks database fields without application code changes

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Signicat logo

Signicat

Cybersecurity

European digital identity hub connecting national eID schemes

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Baffle the proxy sits in the production data path, so it becomes a latency contributor and a failure domain, and any deployment needs load and failover testing that customers routinely underestimate.; Signicat national eID scheme fees are passed through on top of Signicat's own charge, so a single-country business almost always pays less by integrating with the scheme directly.
  • They diverge on capability: Baffle covers Transparent proxy deployment, Signicat covers eID scheme brokering.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Baffle and Signicat actually diverge.

Attributes where Baffle and Signicat differ
AttributeBaffleSignicat
PlatformsLinux, WebWeb, iOS, Android

Identical on both: starting price (On request), pricing model (quote), free tier (No), user rating (Not yet rated), category (Cybersecurity).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Baffle

  • Transparent proxy deployment
  • Field-level encryption
  • Tokenisation
  • Format-preserving de-identification
  • Dynamic data masking
  • Bring your own key
  • Analytics and pipeline support
  • AI pipeline protection

Only in Signicat

  • eID scheme brokering
  • Qualified electronic signatures
  • Document verification
  • AML screening
  • Authentication
  • Digital onboarding flows
  • eIDAS compliance

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Baffle

  • A bank with a legacy application it cannot safely refactor that has an audit finding requiring field-level encryption of account datanot Signicat
  • A company wanting to take a reporting database out of PCI scope by tokenising card fields before they landnot Signicat
  • A healthcare organisation that must ensure database administrators and cloud operators cannot read patient identifiers in the tables they administernot Signicat
  • A team moving regulated data into a warehouse or an AI retrieval pipeline that needs identifiers de-identified in transit without rewriting the ingest jobsnot Signicat

Signicat

  • A lender expanding from Norway into Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands without four separate eID integrationsnot Baffle
  • An insurer needing eIDAS qualified signatures on policy documents that will hold up in a European courtnot Baffle
  • A bank that wants customers to onboard with their existing national bank ID rather than photographing a passportnot Baffle
  • A public sector body needing cross-border recognition of notified eID schemes under eIDASnot Baffle

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Baffle

  • The proxy sits in the production data path, so it becomes a latency contributor and a failure domain, and any deployment needs load and failover testing that customers routinely underestimate.
  • What you can still do in SQL depends on the protection mode chosen, and stronger modes restrict comparisons, joins and aggregations on protected columns, which can quietly break existing reports and analytics.
  • Database and driver coverage is finite, so an organisation with an unusual engine, an old driver or heavy use of stored procedures may find its most important system is exactly the one not supported.
  • Pricing is unpublished and scales with protected data stores, which means an enterprise trying to protect a long tail of small databases pays disproportionately compared with protecting a handful of large ones.
  • Key management is your responsibility under bring your own key, and while that is the correct security posture, it moves a real operational burden and a genuine data-loss risk onto the customer.

Signicat

  • National eID scheme fees are passed through on top of Signicat's own charge, so a single-country business almost always pays less by integrating with the scheme directly.
  • Value is concentrated in Northern and Western Europe, and coverage in Southern and Eastern Europe is thinner, so a pan-European rollout still hits gaps requiring document fallback.
  • Pricing is per transaction and quoted, and because scheme rates vary by country the cost per onboarded customer differs materially between markets in ways that complicate unit economics.
  • Each eID scheme connection typically carries its own setup fee and approval process, so adding a country is a project with a lead time rather than a configuration change.
  • Availability is tied to the national schemes, meaning an outage at BankID or MitID stops your onboarding entirely and there is no vendor-side mitigation for it.

Pricing, plan by plan

Baffle

On request
  • Baffle Data Protection Services$undefined/year
    • Quoted by protected data stores and deployment scale
    • Self-managed and cloud marketplace deployment options
    • Annual subscription

Signicat

On request
  • Signicat Platform$undefined/year
    • Priced per transaction with national scheme fees passed through
    • Signature and verification products licensed separately
    • Setup fee per eID scheme connected

Which should you pick?

Choose Baffle if

  • You need transparent proxy deployment.
  • You work on Linux, Web.
  • You also want field-level encryption.
Baffle review

Choose Signicat if

  • You need eid scheme brokering.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want qualified electronic signatures.
Signicat review

Questions people ask

Is Baffle or Signicat better?
Neither clearly leads. Baffle starts at On request and Signicat at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Baffle or Signicat?
Baffle starts at On request and Signicat at On request.
Does Baffle or Signicat run on more platforms?
Baffle runs on Linux, Web. Signicat runs on Web, iOS, Android.
What is Baffle best used for?
Baffle is most often used for a bank with a legacy application it cannot safely refactor that has an audit finding requiring field-level encryption of account data, a company wanting to take a reporting database out of pci scope by tokenising card fields before they land, a healthcare organisation that must ensure database administrators and cloud operators cannot read patient identifiers in the tables they administer, a team moving regulated data into a warehouse or an ai retrieval pipeline that needs identifiers de-identified in transit without rewriting the ingest jobs. Of those, a bank with a legacy application it cannot safely refactor that has an audit finding requiring field-level encryption of account data and a company wanting to take a reporting database out of pci scope by tokenising card fields before they land are not what Signicat is typically brought in for.
What can Baffle do that Signicat cannot?
Baffle covers Transparent proxy deployment, Field-level encryption, Tokenisation, Format-preserving de-identification. Signicat covers eID scheme brokering, Qualified electronic signatures, Document verification, AML screening.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Baffle: Do applications need code changes?

No. That is the central design choice. Baffle intercepts traffic as a proxy rather than requiring an SDK call at every read and write.

Signicat: Is this an alternative to a document verification vendor?

Only where national eID exists. In markets with a mature bank ID scheme it is better; elsewhere you fall back to document checks, which Signicat also provides.

Baffle: Can you still query encrypted columns?

Partly, and it depends on the protection mode. Some modes preserve equality matching and format, stronger modes restrict what SQL operations remain possible, so this must be tested against your actual queries.

Signicat: Do we still pay the eID schemes?

Yes. Scheme fees are passed through in addition to Signicat charges. Ask for the split when comparing to a direct integration.

Baffle: Does it take systems out of PCI scope?

Tokenisation can reduce scope by ensuring card data never lands in the protected system, but scope reduction is an assessor judgement, not a product setting.

Signicat: Are signatures legally qualified?

Signicat supports eIDAS qualified electronic signatures, which carry the highest legal standing in the EU, as well as advanced signatures.

Baffle: Who holds the encryption keys?

You do, through your own key management service. Baffle supports bring your own key rather than holding customer keys itself.

Share

Related pages

More on Baffle

More on Signicat

Keep looking

Other head to heads