gSignature vs CodeTwo – which tool better supports modern email signature management?

Market segment and solution availability

Both gSignature and CodeTwo operate globally and originate from Poland, but they differ in their target customer approach.

From the outset, gSignature has been designed as a scalable solution for small teams, medium-sized companies, and large organizations. It offers a Free plan, no minimum monthly entry threshold, and publicly communicated price ranges supported by an ROI calculator.

CodeTwo focuses mainly on the mid-market and enterprise segments. Pricing information is partially available, but the lack of clear communication of minimum costs makes it difficult to quickly estimate the budget at the decision-making stage.

Conclusion: gSignature lowers the barrier to entry and allows for faster implementation, even in smaller teams or pilot projects.

Deployment models and IT environments

Both tools support key environments:

• Microsoft 365 / Exchange Online
• Google Workspace
• Exchange on-premise and hybrid
• server-side signatures

However, gSignature offers greater flexibility on the end-user side.

In addition to server-side installation, the following are available:

• Chrome extension
• Support for Microsoft Edge
• Outlook Add-in

This allows organizations to choose an implementation model that suits:

• Security policies
• Level of IT centralization
• Stages of cloud migration

CodeTwo focuses mainly on Outlook Add-in and a classic enterprise approach.

Conclusion: gSignature is better suited to organizations with diverse IT architectures.

Administration, governance, and data synchronization

In the administrative area, both systems offer solid foundations:

• central template management,
• roles and permissions,
• audit logs,
• synchronization with Google Workspace and Entra ID,
• SCIM, and SSO (SAML/OIDC).

The advantage of gSignature is extended automation on the employee data integration side, including:

• native HR synchronization (e.g., Calamari),
• installers linked to directory synchronization,
• greater flexibility of assignments in dynamic structures.

Conclusion: With frequent personnel changes and an extensive organizational structure, gSignature requires less operational work.

Marketing, personalization, and campaigns in signatures

Both tools enable:

• marketing banners,
• segmentation (departments, regions, brands),
• internal and external signatures,
• UTM and link management,
• click analytics.

The differences appear in campaign management over time.

gSignature offers:

• campaign and banner planner,
• publication schedules,
• approach to future experiments and A/B testing,
• stronger focus on marketing and growth.

In CodeTwo, planning and testing are only partially available.

Conclusion: gSignature works better where the e-mail signature is an active marketing channel, not just a formal element.

Design, branding, and accessibility

Both gSignature and CodeTwo offer:

• a drag-and-drop editor,
• dynamic variables,
• a template library.

gSignature's advantage is evident in the area of automatic branding and accessibility:

• automatic logo and color matching to the domain (auto-branding),
• WCAG guidelines and server-side accessibility control,
• visual consistency across the entire organization.

In CodeTwo, auto-branding and accessibility are present to a limited extent.

Conclusion: gSignature provides stronger support for teams concerned with consistent branding and inclusive communication.

Security, compliance, and conformity

Both systems meet high standards:

• ISO 27001/27018 certifications,
• support for legal clauses,
• compliance policies,
• ability to operate in the US and EU.

CodeTwo offers partial support for highly regulated environments (e.g., GCC High), while gSignature focuses on universal compliance for global organizations.

Conclusion: In standard enterprise scenarios, both tools are comparable, with gSignature simplifying management in multi-regional environments.

Analytics and data

Both systems offer:

• click statistics,
• attribution per user and department,
• data export, and API.

gSignature places greater emphasis on analytics as a decision-making tool, combining it with campaigns, ROI, and action planning.

Pricing model and business flexibility

This is one of the key areas of difference.

gSignature:

• Free plan,
• full trial,
• flexible plans (Core, Growth, Enterprise),
• clear communication of the per-user model,
• no minimum monthly threshold.

CodeTwo:

• per-user model,
• classic trial,
• less transparency of initial costs.

Conclusion: gSignature allows you to test business value faster without financial commitments.

Additional integrations

Both tools support:

• CRM and marketing automation through links and UTM.

gSignature offers full HR synchronization (Calamari), which allows you to automatically manage:

• absences,
• substitutions,
• HR data in signatures.

In CodeTwo, HR support is limited.

Summary – when to choose gSignature and when to choose CodeTwo?

gSignature will be a better choice if:

• you want to combine branding, IT, HR, and marketing in one tool,
• you care about automation and flexibility of implementation,
• you need a Free plan or a quick pilot,
• you treat email signatures as a channel of communication and growth.

CodeTwo will work well if:

• you operate in very specific, highly regulated environments,
• you prefer a classic enterprise approach without a growth layer.

For most modern organizations, gSignature offers a wider range of possibilities at a lower operating cost, combining IT, marketing, and HR functions in one cohesive ecosystem.

Finally, a question for you:

are your email signatures just “there” today, or do they really work for your brand, data, and team efficiency?

‍