Best for
Best for brand owners and IP professionals who want screening, clearance and watching with analyst review across many jurisdictions.
Trademark Search & Monitoring Comparison
At a glance
Best for
Best for brand owners and IP professionals who want screening, clearance and watching with analyst review across many jurisdictions.
Best for
Best for developers and law firms who build trademark search, screening and monitoring into their own software or AI assistants.
Cataleo does not name a winner. Both statements come from the vendors themselves.
| Criterion | Corsearch | Signa |
|---|---|---|
| Starting price | Not stated | From $99 / month Starter, billed yearly, with 20,000 credits a month (up to 2,000 searches) and $10 per 1,000 extra credits. Growth is $399 and Scale $999 a month, also billed yearly. The page offers monthly billing and says annual billing saves up to 25%, without stating the monthly amounts. A search costs 10 credits; credit costs for screening and watches are not yet announced. |
| Free trial | Not stated | Free tier with 10,000 credits on signup and 1,000 credits a month, up to 100 searches, no card required |
| API | Not stated | Yes, a REST API with webhooks, a TypeScript SDK, agent skills and a hosted MCP server at api.signa.so/mcp |
| Hosting | Not stated | Cloud: a web app, a REST API, a hosted MCP server and agent skills |
| Registers and countries covered | The vendor cites 190 searchable trademark registries and 240 jurisdictions and territories watched for new marks, within more than 1,000 trademark, company name, domain, design, pharma and common law databases | 13 production offices with more than 40 million records: USPTO, EUIPO, WIPO, CIPO (Canada), IP Australia, IPOS (Singapore), UKIPO, INPI (France), Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Spain and IMPI (Mexico), most synced daily and Canada and France weekly. DPMA, BOIP, JPO, KIPO, CNIPA and further offices are listed as planned. |
| Word, phonetic and image search | Similarity search across phonetic, semantic and visual similarity in ExaMatch and NameCheck, logo and device search through LogoCheck image recognition, and an AI query assist that turns plain language into a search query | Text search through five similarity channels (identical, fuzzy, embedded, phonetic and look-alike characters), each hit labelled with its match tier and the channels that found it. Image search is listed as coming soon. |
| Goods, services and Nice classes | Clearance searches take goods and services, classes and jurisdictions as their criteria, and an AI Product Insights feature categorises products for filings | Search and watches filter by Nice class, and classification endpoints list classes and goods and services and suggest and validate goods and services wording |
| Clearance and conflict screening | Screening of candidate names and clearance of registered and unregistered marks, with regional or worldwide searches combining register and common law sources into one report and Corsearch analysts reviewing and filtering the results | A documented knockout and full similarity search workflow for clearance, a Compare Marks endpoint that scores a candidate against up to 10 selected conflicts, and a Screening product open to design partners during beta. The vendor states the results are informational data and not legal advice. |
| Watch and alerts | Automated Watch and analyst-reviewed Expert Watch across word and design marks in 240 jurisdictions and territories, LogoWatch for logos, a user-set similarity threshold and AI prioritisation of watch results | In beta: five watch types (mark, portfolio, owner, class and similarity), alerts typically within a day of office publication by signed webhook or polling, and computed opposition deadlines on alerts in supported jurisdictions. Image watch is listed as coming soon. |
| Reports and exports | Dashboards and interactive analytics in TrademarkNow, and one report for a regional or worldwide clearance search | JSON responses from every endpoint and a monthly proof-of-monitoring attestation per watch, as a PDF and a JSON file |
| Integrations and API | Not stated | REST API with webhooks, a TypeScript SDK, and a hosted MCP server for Claude, ChatGPT, Cursor and VS Code; Microsoft Copilot is listed as coming soon |
| AI features | Yes | Yes |
| MCP-ready | No | stated Yes |
| Deployment | Cloud (SaaS) | more entries Cloud (SaaS), Browser-based |
| Onboarding | Not stated | Documentation and knowledge base |
| Integrations | Not stated | Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, Cursor, Visual Studio Code |
Adds a column to the table, from the tools in this category.
Row where the values differ The small markers point at the lower number, the longer list or the stated feature. They describe the data, they are not a verdict.
The short version
Every line is one datapoint from the table above, picked automatically. Nothing here is written text.
The trade-offs
Corsearch
Strengths
Limitations
Signa
Strengths
Limitations
Plans
Corsearch
Price on Request
Visit siteSigna
What users say
Corsearch
No reviews yet. Nothing has been published here yet, and no score is shown. How a review is checked before it appears is described below.
Signa
No reviews yet. Nothing has been published here yet, and no score is shown. How a review is checked before it appears is described below.
Before sending, the author has to confirm three things: that they have used the product themselves, that they work neither for the vendor nor for a competitor, and that nobody is paying them for the review. We also ask whether the vendor invited them to write it. That answer is required, either answer is accepted, and it stays with the review.
Every review is read by a person before it appears. An email address is required and is confirmed: we send a link to it, and a review does not reach us until the author opens that link, so a review has a sender who was reachable at least once rather than being anonymous. Where what somebody writes needs backing, we ask them for evidence that they used the product, and a review that does not get it is not published. We publish positive and negative reviews alike, we pay nothing and offer nothing for a review, and we accept none that was bought or incentivised.
What we cannot do is verify a purchase. There is no shop here and no account, so whether the author really used the tool rests on their own declaration, on whatever we ask them for, and on the plausibility of what they write. We say so rather than implying a check that does not exist.
A vendor cannot buy a review, and cannot have one removed or changed because they dislike it. We remove or edit a review only if it breaks our rules or the law, for example a false statement of fact. Paid placement has no effect on which reviews appear or on any score.
Where this comes from
Corsearch https://corsearch.com/ · checked against the official source on 2026-11-05
Signa https://signa.so/ · checked against the official source on 2026-11-05
This table lists factual criteria taken from information the vendors publish themselves. For how we put it together, see the methodology.