Simple, advanced, qualified: which one your document needs

eIDAS defines three tiers of electronic signature: simple, advanced and qualified. Only the qualified tier is automatically equivalent to a handwritten signature across the EU. The other two are admissible but have to be argued for. closeit.fast issues simple electronic signatures, which is the right tool for most commercial agreements and the wrong one for a short, specific list of documents.

Almost every vendor in this category describes its product as “eIDAS compliant” and stops there. The phrase is close to meaningless, because compliance is not a property a signature either has or lacks. eIDAS sorts signatures into tiers and gives each tier a different legal effect.

The three tiers

Regulation (EU) 910/2014 defines them in Article 3.

Simple electronic signature

Article 3(10): “data in electronic form which is attached to or logically associated with other data in electronic form and which is used by the signatory to sign.” That is the whole definition. A typed name, a drawn mark, a clicked “I agree”, a scanned image of a signature — all of them qualify. There is no technical requirement whatsoever.

This is what closeit.fast produces, and what almost every mainstream signing product produces by default, whatever the marketing says.

Advanced electronic signature

Article 26 adds four requirements. It must be uniquely linked to the signatory, capable of identifying them, created using data the signatory can use under their sole control with a high level of confidence, and linked to the signed data in such a way that any subsequent change is detectable.

Sole control is the demanding one. In practice it implies signing material held by the signatory rather than a record held by the platform, which is a different architecture, not a setting.

Qualified electronic signature

Article 3(12): an advanced signature created by a qualified signature creation device and based on a qualified certificate. Both of those are terms of art. The certificate comes from a qualified trust service provider on the EU Trusted List, and identity is verified in advance, usually in person or through an accredited video process.

The article that actually matters

Article 25 is short, and it is where the practical difference lives.

25(1) — a signature “shall not be denied legal effect and admissibility as evidence in legal proceedings solely on the grounds that it is in an electronic form or that it does not meet the requirements for qualified electronic signatures.” So a simple signature cannot be discarded for being simple. That is a floor, not a guarantee.

25(2) — “A qualified electronic signature shall have the equivalent legal effect of a handwritten signature.” Only this tier gets that sentence.

25(3) — a qualified signature based on a qualified certificate issued in one Member State is recognised in all of them.

The gap between 25(1) and 25(2) is the entire product decision. A simple signature is evidence you may have to defend. A qualified signature is a conclusion you do not have to argue.

What this means in practice

For the overwhelming majority of business agreements — an NDA, a statement of work, a supplier contract, a consultancy engagement — a simple electronic signature backed by a real audit trail is the proportionate tool. Nobody is going to contest it, and if they do, the record is what carries the argument.

The calculation changes when one of these is true:

• National law demands a specific form. eIDAS harmonises effect, not formality. Member States keep their own rules about what must be in writing, notarised or witnessed, and those rules survive the Regulation.
• The counterparty’s policy demands a tier. Banks, insurers, public procurement portals and some large enterprises simply require a qualified signature. That is a contractual requirement rather than a legal one, and arguing with it is not worth your afternoon.
• You expect the signature to be disputed. If the relationship is already adversarial, buy the tier that removes the argument.
• The amount at stake dwarfs the cost of the upgrade. A qualified signature costs real money per signatory and takes an identity check. That is expensive against a small engagement and trivial against a large one.

Where we are not the answer

If you need an advanced or qualified signature, closeit.fast will not give you one, and no configuration option changes that. You want a qualified trust service provider on the EU Trusted List. Sending a simple signature into a situation that requires a qualified one produces a document that looks finished and is not, which is worse than an unsigned one, because nobody chases it.

The United States does not work this way

There are no tiers in American law. ESIGN (15 U.S.C. § 7001(a)) and UETA make a signature valid because a person executed a record with intent to sign it, and say nothing at all about the technology used. UETA § 9 then decides attribution on evidence, in any manner, including a showing of the efficacy of the security procedure applied.

So the American question is never “which tier”. It is “how good is your record”, which is a question about the audit trail rather than about cryptography. UETA is in force in 49 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands; New York is the sole holdout and runs its own Electronic Signatures and Records Act instead.

The honest summary

1. Signing an ordinary commercial agreement, US or EU, with a counterparty who wants to sign it: a simple electronic signature with a full audit trail is proportionate. Use us.
2. The counterparty, the regulator or the portal has specified an advanced or qualified signature: go to a qualified trust service provider. We cannot help.
3. The document is a will, a deed, or something your national law says must be notarised or witnessed: no tier of electronic signature solves that on its own.

Nobody sells you the third answer, which is exactly why it is worth writing down.