TrueScreen is qualified-timestamp-grade. Receipts.you is free and externally anchored.
TrueScreen (and similar EU qualified-timestamping providers — InfoCert, Aruba, Namirial) offer eIDAS-qualified screenshot evidence. The output is a notarial-grade timestamp from a Qualified Trust Service Provider, recognized as legally equivalent to a paper notary in EU jurisdictions. It costs per seal and requires account setup. Receipts.you offers a different trade-off: SHA-256 + ECDSA signature + OpenTimestamps anchor, free, browser-only, no account. The cryptographic primitives are equivalent strength; the eIDAS-qualified status is the legal distinction. For everyday provenance, civil disputes, journalism, and most court contexts, receipts.you is sufficient and free. For high-stakes EU regulatory or commercial disputes where QTSP status is procedurally required, TrueScreen (or another QTSP) is the right choice. We'd rather tell you that than oversell.
If you're a lawyer in a high-stakes EU commercial dispute where the procedural rules require QTSP-qualified evidence, use TrueScreen. For everything else — everyday provenance, civil disputes, criminal-evidence supporting material, journalism, family/HR matters — receipts.you is sufficient and free. Honest: they don't compete for most uses.
Pick receipts.you if…
- You need everyday or high-volume sealing without per-seal cost.
- The matter is outside EU QTSP procedural requirements (most civil/family/HR/journalism matters).
- You want anonymous, no-signup, browser-only.
- You want the proof to be verifiable offline forever, independent of any single provider's continued operation.
- You need the evidence in a court that doesn't have specific QTSP-only procedural rules (most US, UK, non-EU jurisdictions).
Pick TrueScreen if…
- The matter is in an EU jurisdiction where eIDAS-qualified status is procedurally required.
- Opposing counsel is likely to challenge non-qualified timestamps and your court is sensitive to that procedural objection.
- You're willing to pay per seal in exchange for QTSP-grade legal weight.
- You need notarial-equivalent receipts for commercial-property or large-stakes financial transactions where QTSP is the established norm.
Axis by axis
| Axis | receipts.you | TrueScreen | Edge |
|---|---|---|---|
| Legal status | Cryptographic timestamp evidence; weight decided by court. | eIDAS-qualified timestamp; presumptive validity in EU jurisdictions. | the other tool |
| Cost | Free. | Per-seal fee + subscription, typically. | receipts.you |
| Signup | None. | Account + verified identity required. | receipts.you |
| External anchor | OpenTimestamps to a public blockchain. | QTSP-internal timestamp authority. | both / tie |
| Verifier UX | Browser drop file, get verdict. | QTSP-provided verifier, typically signed PDF format. | both / tie |
| Image privacy | Image never leaves browser. | Typically uploaded to QTSP infrastructure for timestamping. | receipts.you |
| Anonymity | Yes — no identity binding. | No — qualified identity is the value proposition. | both / tie |
| Survives provider shutdown | Yes — OTS anchor on public chain, public-key verification offline. | Survives QTSP shutdown if the qualified-timestamp authority's certificate chain is preserved. | receipts.you |
| Established in EU regulatory practice | New (2026). | Established — eIDAS-recognized. | the other tool |
Specific questions about this comparison
Is a receipts.you receipt admissible in EU court?
Cryptographic timestamp evidence from non-qualified providers is generally admissible in EU courts under standard documentary-evidence rules, but the procedural weight is decided by the court. For matters where eIDAS-qualified status is required by specific procedural rules (e.g., some commercial-property registries, certain regulated-industry filings), a non-qualified timestamp won't substitute. For most civil, family, and criminal-supporting evidence, receipts.you is sufficient. Your jurisdiction-specific lawyer will tell you when QTSP is required vs. when standard cryptographic timestamps suffice.
Why is TrueScreen so much more expensive?
QTSP status comes with regulatory compliance burden — audits, accredited identity verification, infrastructure controls, qualified personnel. These costs are passed through. Receipts.you doesn't carry that compliance overhead because we don't claim QTSP status; we offer the cryptographic floor without the regulatory layer.
Can I use both?
Yes — for a high-stakes matter where QTSP is required for one specific filing but you want broad evidence preservation throughout discovery, use receipts.you for the bulk-evidence chain and TrueScreen for the specific QTSP-required artifact. Belt and braces.
Will receipts.you become QTSP-qualified eventually?
Not in current scope. Becoming a QTSP would change the product fundamentally — identity binding, account requirement, per-seal cost, regulated infrastructure. We see more value in being the free cryptographic floor than in competing with established QTSPs for high-stakes EU regulatory work. If QTSP-grade evidence is what you need, established QTSPs are the right choice.
Does the OpenTimestamps anchor make receipts.you 'qualified'?
No. eIDAS-qualified status is a regulatory designation requiring accredited audit, not a cryptographic property. OpenTimestamps anchoring strengthens the timestamp's verifiability beyond trusting any single provider, but it doesn't grant eIDAS qualification. Honest framing.
Pick the legal weight your matter needs.
Most matters don't need QTSP. For the ones that do, use TrueScreen. For everything else, receipts.you is the free cryptographic floor.