Softwr

Cybersecurity · head to head

Signicat vs Unit21

Signicat logo

Signicat

Cybersecurity

European digital identity hub connecting national eID schemes

From
On request
Rated
-
Unit21 logo

Unit21

Cybersecurity

No-code fraud and AML risk operations platform for fintechs and neobanks

From
On request
Rated
-

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: 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.; Unit21 it is built for fintech scale rather than card issuer scale, so organisations reaching very high transaction volumes generally re-evaluate against heavier platforms and face a migration.
  • They diverge on capability: Signicat covers eID scheme brokering, Unit21 covers No-code rule builder.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Signicat and Unit21 actually diverge.

Attributes where Signicat and Unit21 differ
AttributeSignicatUnit21
PlatformsWeb, iOS, AndroidWeb

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 Signicat

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

Only in Unit21

  • No-code rule builder
  • Case management
  • SAR filing
  • Backtesting
  • Identity and device signals
  • Data ingestion API

What people use each for

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

Signicat

  • A lender expanding from Norway into Sweden, Denmark and the Netherlands without four separate eID integrationsnot Unit21
  • An insurer needing eIDAS qualified signatures on policy documents that will hold up in a European courtnot Unit21
  • A bank that wants customers to onboard with their existing national bank ID rather than photographing a passportnot Unit21
  • A public sector body needing cross-border recognition of notified eID schemes under eIDASnot Unit21

Unit21

  • A neobank whose sponsor bank requires a documented monitoring programme before it will keep the BIN sponsorshipnot Signicat
  • A crypto exchange needing SAR filing and case management without building an internal compliance engineering teamnot Signicat
  • A payments startup where the fraud lead needs to ship a new rule the same day a new attack pattern appearsnot Signicat
  • A lender consolidating fraud alerts from three point tools into one investigator queue with a single audit trailnot Signicat

Where each one falls short

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

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.

Unit21

  • It is built for fintech scale rather than card issuer scale, so organisations reaching very high transaction volumes generally re-evaluate against heavier platforms and face a migration.
  • No-code rule authoring shifts power to the risk team, which is the point, but without governance it produces rule sprawl that nobody can explain to an examiner two years later.
  • Detection quality depends on the signals you feed it, so a thin integration produces thin results and the platform cannot compensate with proprietary consortium data the way larger vendors do.
  • Pricing is quoted by volume with an annual commitment, so a fintech whose growth stalls pays for headroom it did not use.
  • SAR filing coverage is oriented to United States FinCEN reporting, so firms filing in the United Kingdom, European Union or Asia handle those submissions outside the tool.

Pricing, plan by plan

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

Unit21

On request
  • Unit21 Platform$undefined/year
    • Priced by monitored volume and modules, annual contract
    • Fraud, AML and case management packaged separately
    • Implementation and historical data backfill quoted with the subscription

Which should you pick?

Choose Signicat if

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

Choose Unit21 if

  • You need no-code rule builder.
  • You also want case management.

Questions people ask

Is Signicat or Unit21 better?
Neither clearly leads. Signicat starts at On request and Unit21 at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Signicat or Unit21?
Signicat starts at On request and Unit21 at On request.
Does Signicat or Unit21 run on more platforms?
Signicat runs on Web, iOS, Android. Unit21 runs on Web.
What is Signicat best used for?
Signicat is most often used for a lender expanding from norway into sweden, denmark and the netherlands without four separate eid integrations, an insurer needing eidas qualified signatures on policy documents that will hold up in a european court, a bank that wants customers to onboard with their existing national bank id rather than photographing a passport, a public sector body needing cross-border recognition of notified eid schemes under eidas. Of those, a lender expanding from norway into sweden, denmark and the netherlands without four separate eid integrations and an insurer needing eidas qualified signatures on policy documents that will hold up in a european court are not what Unit21 is typically brought in for.
What can Signicat do that Unit21 cannot?
Signicat covers eID scheme brokering, Qualified electronic signatures, Document verification, AML screening. Unit21 covers No-code rule builder, Case management, SAR filing, Backtesting.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

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.

Unit21: Do we need engineers to run it?

Only for the initial data integration. After that the design intent is that risk and compliance staff author and deploy rules themselves.

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.

Unit21: Does it file SARs?

Yes, it generates and electronically files suspicious activity reports to FinCEN. Non-US regimes are not covered to the same depth.

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.

Unit21: Can we test a rule before it goes live?

Yes. Backtesting against historical data to see projected alert volume is one of the more useful parts of the product, because alert volume is the real cost.

Share

Related pages

Other head to heads