Aerofiler vs Ironclad: how they compare in 2026
Buyer roundups list Ironclad among the leading alternatives to Aerofiler, and the two sit at different ends of the contract management market. Ironclad is built for large enterprises such as Mastercard, L'Oréal and Cisco. Ironclad Agent puts a company's contracts, deal history and negotiation knowledge to work in agentic contracting. Integrations reach Salesforce, Coupa and Ramp, backed by SOC 1 and SOC 2 Type II reports and ISO 27001, 27017 and 27018. Aerofiler, from Sydney, serves legal, sales and HR teams that want a repository and approval workflows running within days. Rapid Learning AI learns a new data point from a few examples and pulls key terms and obligations from stored contracts, and OCR reads image PDFs. Templates with smart fields drive self service requests, and approvals route in parallel or in sequence before DocuSign, Adobe Sign or Namirial eSignAnyWhere. Allianz cut approval and signing from a week to a day. An enterprise legal team negotiating at scale has more depth in Ironclad. A smaller team that wants contracts filed, extracted and approved fits Aerofiler, which offers a free trial.
At a glance
All 15 axes, side by side
The same grid applied to every vendor in the index, graded from public sources. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
AI drives the repository. Rapid Learning AI learns a new contract data point from a few examples and extracts key terms, dates and obligations across the stored contracts, and OCR reads image PDFs. The extracted data feeds obligation tracking, renewal reminders and reports, and Sophos used it to mine audit and regulatory data from its contracts. Much of the product runs without models: templates with smart fields, approval workflows, electronic signature routing, automatic folder structures, permissions and audit logs. Remove the AI and Aerofiler still works as a contract workflow and filing system, with extraction done by hand.
Intake, the no code Workflow Designer, approvals, signature, the repository and analytics run without AI, and Ironclad sells that system of record as the base of the platform. Ironclad AI sits on top of it. Ironclad Agent takes a plain language request and returns the answer, the contract or the workflow, or hands the task to a specialized agent. Contract Review Agent redlines third party paper against playbooks and precedent, Intake Agent pulls terms into launch forms, Renewal Agent briefs upcoming renewals, and Analytics Agent charts contracting data. The agents act on live workflow state, such as where a contract sits in approval, as well as on documents. The contract platform predates generative AI and would still work without the models.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
The AI is said to learn contract data accurately from only a few examples, and extracted values sit beside the contract they came from in the repository. No accuracy figure, test set, error rate or failure mode is published for extraction, and nothing describes how an extracted value is traced back to the clause or flagged when the model is unsure. The product works on a customer's own contracts and cites no legal authority.
Ironclad's AI Systems team published how its extraction is grounded in May 2026. The model returns each value with a description of where it sits in the contract. A second pass ties that value to the exact OCR tokens, so the interface highlights the passage with its page and position. If the model returns no match, the system tries the raw text and then the normalized value before giving up on a location. Contract Review Agent bases redlines on the customer's playbooks, templates and precedent agreements, and redlines can show their rationale. Answers through the MCP connectors link back to the contract in Ironclad. No accuracy figure, error rate or test set is published, and the AI Addendum says output may be incorrect or inaccurate.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
Approvals are human: parallel and sequential approval workflows route generated contracts to the right people, and templates with smart fields limit what self service users can change. Comments and notes sit inside the application. For the AI itself, nothing describes whether extracted data is reviewed before it drives reminders and reports, what confidence threshold applies, or how a user corrects a wrong extraction. Bulk editing lets an administrator change hundreds of records at once.
Ironclad Agent routes each request to the right agent or workflow, and the agents work inside existing contracting workflows under the user's permissions. Contract Review Agent proposes redlines, flags risk and applies positions in Ironclad or directly in Microsoft Word, with the final decision left to the reviewer. Playbooks set preferred positions and fallbacks, and answers through the MCP connectors are limited to contracts the user can already open. The AI Addendum makes the customer responsible for reviewing and validating output before using it, and says the AI products are no substitute for human oversight. Ironclad does not publish when an agent stops or hands work back, or a limit on what an agent may complete without a person.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
Allianz cut approval and signing time from a week to a day, in a case study Aerofiler publishes, and its senior regional legal counsel, Eric White, praises the team's flexibility with Allianz's security requirements. Mark Nishihara, legal operations manager at Sophos, says contract lookups and data extraction now support decisions that were not possible before, saving the team days of manual work. BBP's legal and corporate development lead and Amnesty International's legal counsel are also quoted, on organized information and obligation tracking. The case studies carry no dates, and only the Allianz figure is measured.
Named customers report figures. NEXT Insurance says Contract Review Agent gave legal operations half its time back, and AES reports first pass redlines that took 30 minutes to two hours now reach a first draft in minutes. Signifyd puts an MNDA review or custom order form clause at minutes rather than an hour to a day, and Hormel's senior counsel reports turnaround cut from 12 weeks to 3. A Forrester study drawn from five customer organizations puts the three year return at 314 percent. Apart from that study, the figures come from the customers themselves, undated and with no method stated.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
Contracts are encrypted at rest and in transit, administrators set who can see what, and links replace email attachments so access can be tracked and withdrawn. Aerofiler's ISMS is certified to ISO 27001. The terms of service, effective since August 2021, do not address AI, training on customer documents or what the AI providers on the subprocessor list may keep. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Litera appear on that list, Litera to process customer documents, without a stated limit on their use of the data. No confidentiality clause covering customer contracts was found in the terms, and the EU data processing addendum dates from 2018.
Ironclad's AI Addendum lets it train its own models on customer data, input and output only after a customer enables AI Training Settings in the admin console. An opt out stops new training from that date. That data is first de identified, anonymized and aggregated, and output for other customers may not contain it. Whether or not a customer opts in, Ironclad may use input and output to evaluate the performance and accuracy of the service. External model providers may not train on customer data and run under zero data retention where available. The Enterprise Services Agreement treats customer data as confidential information, and SOC 2 covers the privacy category. The terms say nothing about attorney client privilege or work product, and Ironclad documents access by role rather than separation between matters.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
Contract templates, generation and extraction are sold to in house legal, sales and HR teams. No position is published on legal advice, on who must review generated contracts, or on the responsibility of the lawyers who own the templates. The terms address acceptable use and the customer's responsibility for its own data, not the legal effect of output.
Ironclad markets its AI to legal teams and to sales, procurement and operations users, and describes the platform as built for everyone, lawyers or not. Its AI Addendum states that Ironclad is not the customer's legal advisor, that using the AI products creates no attorney client relationship, and that the customer should consult its own counsel. A separate AI Disclaimer says output is not legal advice and should be verified with a licensed professional before anyone acts on it. Neither document addresses competence or supervision duties, or which jurisdictions the product suits.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
No AI policy, governance framework, owner or testing program is published. Rapid Learning AI is described by what it does, learning from a few examples, without any account of how its extraction is tested, monitored or corrected over time.
Ironclad says every AI feature passes through its Evaluation Framework, which measures accuracy, consistency and reliability against curated benchmarks and real contract data. Subject matter experts validate model output during development and after release, with feedback loops meant to catch bias early, and training data is chosen to cover varied contract types and jurisdictions. Dimitry Dukhovny, the chief information security officer, leads security, compliance and AI governance. Customers can review, override and keep governing agent behavior across teams and contract types. No evaluation results are published, and nothing is disclosed about where output quality differs by contract type, jurisdiction or party.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
Documents sit in Amazon S3 and metadata in MongoDB Atlas, both encrypted with AES 256 at rest, and all traffic runs over TLS 1.2. Staff reach systems over encrypted, MFA protected connections on a least privilege basis, and customers get two factor authentication, forced sign outs, password rules, user suspension and audit logs of who viewed, downloaded or edited each document. An incident response program monitors production, and affected users are told of a breach, without a stated deadline. The subprocessor list names each provider, its purpose and country. Personal data is kept as long as the contract and the law require, and under the EU addendum it is deleted on termination; no retention period for contracts or AI processing is set out.
Ironclad's Data Processing Addendum, version 3.10 from 5 March 2026, limits storage of customer personal data to what the services need. It destroys all copies, archives included, within 90 days of the agreement ending, returns data within 30 days on request and issues a deletion certificate within 30 days. A security incident is reported to the customer within 48 hours of Ironclad becoming aware of it. The subprocessor list names each provider, its activity and its location for the United States platform, the EU datacenter and Clickwrap. A new subprocessor comes with 30 days' email notice and a right to object. External model providers run under zero data retention and may not train on customer data. Data is encrypted with TLS 1.2 or higher in transit and AES 256 at rest, with per tenant keys and bring or hold your own key options, and access follows administrator set roles.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
Under the terms of service, effective 9 August 2021 and governed by New South Wales law, Aerofiler's aggregate liability is capped at the fees paid in the 12 months before the event. The cap does not apply to fraud or willful misconduct, death or personal injury, or infringement of third party intellectual property. The customer indemnifies Aerofiler against third party claims about its use and data, and no indemnity runs the other way. Nothing addresses AI output or errors in extracted data.
Version 2.2 of the Enterprise Services Agreement, in force since 1 July 2026, is published in Ironclad's legal center. Ironclad defends and indemnifies customers against third party claims that the platform infringes intellectual property, and against claims from unauthorized disclosure of customer data caused by its breach of the data and security terms. It warrants that the services materially conform to the agreement and comply with applicable law; if a nonconformity is not fixed within 30 days, the customer may terminate for a pro rata refund. Liability is capped at the fees paid in the prior twelve months, rising to three times that amount for data and confidentiality breaches and the data indemnity. Gross negligence, intentional misconduct and the intellectual property indemnity sit outside the cap, and consequential loss is excluded. The service level schedule targets 99.7 percent uptime, with service credits as the remedy. The customer bears sole responsibility for results from AI output, which Ironclad does not warrant as accurate, and the agreement carries no insurance commitment.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
Native integrations, set up in a few clicks, cover Salesforce, DocuSign, Adobe Sign, Namirial eSignAnyWhere, Microsoft Teams, Slack and Google Drive, and Aerofiler works with Microsoft Word documents. Zapier connects other applications, Okta handles single sign on, and the Enterprise plan adds an API. What each integration moves, such as whether Salesforce opportunities create contract requests or signed documents file back automatically, is not described, and no document management system used by legal teams is named.
Ironclad offers native integrations, iPaaS connections to more than 8,000 applications, and a documented public API, with Tray, Zapier and MuleSoft in its directory. The directory names Salesforce, which is AppExchange approved, Coupa, SAP, NetSuite, Zip and Ramp, Microsoft Word and Teams, Slack, DocuSign and Adobe Acrobat Sign, and Box, Google Drive, OneDrive, Dropbox and Egnyte. MCP connectors answer questions about contracts and workflow status in Claude, ChatGPT and Slackbot, scoped to the user's permissions and linked back to Ironclad. Ironclad publishes no connector to iManage or NetDocuments, and its directory entries do not say what data moves or in which direction.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
The service runs on AWS across data centers in several locations, and Aerofiler says it can work with customers who need data held in a particular place. Documents sit in Amazon S3 and metadata in MongoDB Atlas. The default region is not stated, the subprocessor list puts most providers in the United States and Microsoft in Australia and the United States, and nothing separates where AI processing runs from where contracts are stored.
Ironclad runs as a cloud service on Google Cloud Platform, in multiple zones in the United States, with a separate EU datacenter. For EU hosted customers the subprocessor list places Anthropic and OpenAI, along with Elastic Cloud, Datadog and the product database, in the EU, so AI processing stays in that region too. Clickwrap runs separately on Amazon Web Services in the United States. Customers can bring or hold their own encryption keys. Ironclad does not describe a tenancy model or what changes between plans.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
The ISMS is certified to ISO 27001 and audited annually by an independent JAS-ANZ accredited body, which is not named, and regular security testing is described. No certificate, scope statement or audit report is published, and there is no trust center. Physical security rests on AWS data centers with their own SOC reports.
Ironclad holds SOC 1 and SOC 2 Type II reports from routine third party audits covering security, availability, confidentiality and privacy, along with ISO 27001, 27701, 27017 and 27018. It runs a GDPR program with standard contractual clauses, complies with HIPAA and holds Cloud Security Alliance Trusted Cloud Provider status, with a public CAIQ on the alliance's site. Penetration tests run each year and vulnerability tests each quarter, and disaster recovery is tested twice a year. Certification documents are requested through a security portal, and the website gives no auditor, audit period or report date.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
The subprocessor list names OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Microsoft, all as infrastructure and cloud services, and Litera to process customer documents. Which of them runs Rapid Learning AI, which models are used and for what, and where the processing happens are not stated, and no notice of changes to the list is promised.
Contract Review Agent uses models from Google Gemini, OpenAI and Anthropic, chosen for quality, latency and performance, and Ironclad says it evaluates and swaps in models as they change. Its own models, which learn from aggregated, anonymized data of customers who opt in, sit alongside them. The subprocessor list names Anthropic, OpenAI and Extend for AI and Google Cloud Platform for cloud and AI infrastructure, each in the United States or the EU. A new subprocessor brings 30 days' email notice and a right to object, and AI subprocessors run under zero data retention where available and may not train on customer data. Ironclad does not say which model serves which agent, and a change of model within an existing provider triggers no notice.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
Three plans are published with their features and no prices. Starter covers OCR, custom fields, smart file naming, reports, reminders and dynamic folders. Standard adds electronic signature integration, approval workflows, document generation, role based permissions and onboarding help, and Enterprise adds custom reports, single sign on, custom branding, custom automations and API access. Each plan is booked through a demo, and a free trial needs no card details.
Ironclad prices by custom quote and publishes no figure. Its pricing page sets out the structure. A customer picks one or more of the CLM, AI assistant and eSignature products, and a deployment led by its own team, Ironclad's legal engineers or a partner. Add ons cover the API and integrations, extra instances and success plans. Security costs nothing extra, some integrations are included and others are paid add ons, and the academy, community and in app guides are free. Its fair use policy for AI sells agent use as AI Credits set in the order form and bills overage at the then current list price. Fair use of the embedded AI features is judged against seat count. Contract Review Agent comes within Ironclad CLM, with a seven day trial arranged through sales.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
Solution pages address legal, sales and HR teams, with plans from early stage companies to enterprises. For legal teams the product supports buy side and sell side contracts, self service templates with approval guardrails, data extraction and analytics on workload and headcount. Customers range from Allianz and Sophos to Amnesty International. Which contract types, languages and jurisdictions the extraction handles well, and law firm use, are not addressed.
Ironclad sells to enterprise and growing companies, with dedicated pages for general counsel, legal operations, procurement, sales and IT. It describes the platform as handling every contract type, from legal and sales to finance, HR, marketing and procurement, from intake through renewal. Named customers include Mastercard, L'Oreal, Cisco, Docker, Gusto and Rippling. The product covers contracting only, with no litigation or legal research function. Ironclad does not say which organization sizes or contract types it does not serve.
The 12 legal signals, side by side
Recorded rather than graded. These are the questions a practitioner has to answer before a tool touches a client matter, and the answers are taken from public material only.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
The terms of service, effective since August 2021, the privacy policy and the 2018 EU data processing addendum say nothing about training AI models on customer contracts, either way. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and Litera sit on the subprocessor list without a stated limit on their use of customer documents.
Section 1.1 of the AI Addendum, version 2.1 from 20 April 2026, lets Ironclad train its own models on customer data, input and output once the customer turns on AI Training Settings. The data is de identified, anonymized and aggregated first, an opt out stops new training but not training already under way, and external model providers may never train on it. Ironclad's product FAQ says the default setting depends on the customer's agreement and data location.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Personal data is kept as long as needed to perform the contract and meet legal obligations, and the EU addendum deletes it on termination. No period is stated for stored contracts or for data sent to AI providers.
During the term, the Data Processing Addendum keeps customer personal data only as long as the services need it, and the AI Addendum sets no separate period for prompts and output. All copies are destroyed within 90 days after the agreement ends, with a 28 day window to export the repository. External model providers run under zero data retention.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Administrators set who can see which contracts through role based permissions, and audit logs record who viewed, downloaded or edited each document. How permissions are scoped, by folder, contract type or team, is not documented.
Ironclad keeps its own role based permissions, set by administrators, rather than inheriting them from a document system. Agents and MCP answers respect the same permissions, so a user sees only the contracts already open to them. Nothing describes walls between matters, since the product is built for in house teams rather than firms.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The privacy policy allows disclosure to courts, law enforcement or government authorities where the law requires or permits it, including to comply with legal process. No commitment to notify the customer is made, and no transparency report is published.
The Data Processing Addendum commits Ironclad to tell the customer promptly of any government or law enforcement request for its personal data, unless the law forbids it, and to help the customer contest it. The Enterprise Services Agreement allows disclosure of confidential information under a court or government order after reasonable notice where the law permits. Ironclad publishes no transparency report.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
The product works on the customer's own contracts and templates and retrieves no primary law, so no legal corpus sits behind it. Extraction learns from examples the customer supplies.
Ironclad's AI works over the customer's own contracts, playbooks and workflow data rather than a body of law. Its own models learn from aggregated, anonymized patterns across customers who opt in, and Ironclad cites more than 2 billion contracts processed. No source, scale, license or refresh cycle is given for that training data.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No case law or legislation is cited, since the product manages contracts and extracts data from them, so no check of good law applies to its output.
Ironclad works on contracts and has no case law research function, so its output rarely cites authority. No citator, treatment signal or check of later history is described.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Nothing describes what happens when Rapid Learning AI cannot find a data point in a contract or is unsure of a value, and no confidence signal is shown on extracted fields.
Contract Review Agent flags missing clauses and departures from a company's standards, and extraction highlights the passage each value came from. When the model cannot place a value, the grounding system retries on the raw and normalized text rather than returning nothing. No path for declining to answer, and no confidence signal for the user, is described.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming Aerofiler. Its AI extracts data from contracts rather than citing authority.
Ironclad has no entry in the AI Hallucination Cases database, Damien Charlotin's record of court decisions involving hallucinated AI content. Ironclad is a contracting platform, and its output is seldom filed with a court as cited authority.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No ethics opinion, bar rule or professional responsibility guidance is discussed in Aerofiler's material, which addresses business teams as much as lawyers.
Ironclad's AI Addendum and AI Disclaimer say output is not legal advice and should be verified with a licensed professional. No ethics opinion or bar guidance is named, ABA Formal Opinion 512 included.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
In house legal, sales and HR teams buy the product, and the named customers, Allianz, Sophos, Amnesty International and BBP, use it on their own contracts rather than billing clients for the work. Its savings claims, hours of filing avoided and approvals cut from a week to a day, are aimed at the buyer's own costs.
Ironclad's savings claims come from named customers: NEXT Insurance recovering half of legal operations time, and AES and Signifyd cutting first redlines and NDA reviews to minutes. Its buyers are in house teams that do not bill clients by the hour, and nothing records AI assisted work for fee purposes.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A public subprocessor list names thirteen providers with purpose and country, including AWS, MongoDB, Microsoft, Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, Litera, DocuSign, Adobe, Namirial, Okta, Twilio and Zapier. The roles of the AI providers are described only as infrastructure and cloud services.
Ironclad's subprocessor list names Anthropic, OpenAI and Extend for AI and Google Cloud Platform for cloud and AI infrastructure, with locations for the United States platform and the EU datacenter. The Enterprise Services Agreement, Data Processing Addendum and AI Addendum are public in its legal center. A new subprocessor brings 30 days' email notice and a right to object. No notice pack written for a client's outside counsel guidelines is published.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Contracts, not court filings, are what the product handles, and nothing addresses disclosure of AI use to a court. Audit logs record document activity but not which model extracted a value.
Ironclad's workflows record routing, assignment and approvals for each contract, and AI review is described as auditable, with humans able to review and override it. Extracted values highlight their source passage and redlines can show their rationale. No export records which model produced an output or who verified it. Ironclad's output is contract work rather than court filings.
The questions both sides leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favor either vendor. Take these into both conversations and ask each side the same question.
- Primary Law Corpus Provenance
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
- Bar Guidance Alignment
Which one fits
Choose Aerofiler if
- Your team is small and wants to start quickly. Aerofiler sets up in minutes, imports thousands of contracts within hours and runs without an IT team.
- You track data points specific to your own contracts. Rapid Learning AI learns a new field from a few examples.
- Signatures run through more than one provider. Aerofiler routes to DocuSign, Adobe Sign or Namirial eSignAnyWhere.
Choose Ironclad if
- You negotiate at enterprise volume. Ironclad Agent draws on deal history and negotiation knowledge across your contracts.
- Procurement and spend systems feed your contracts. Ironclad integrates with Coupa and Ramp as well as Salesforce.
- Your security review asks for SOC 1 as well as SOC 2. Ironclad holds each report, with ISO 27001, 27017 and 27018.
In summary
Aerofiler
Aerofiler is contract management software from Aerofiler Pty Ltd in Sydney for in house legal, sales and HR teams. Its repository files contracts and extracts their terms with Rapid Learning AI, and templates and approval workflows handle self service requests. Aerofiler is certified to ISO 27001 and publishes a named subprocessor list that includes OpenAI and Anthropic, while its terms do not address AI training.
Ironclad
Ironclad is an AI contracting platform used by companies such as Mastercard, L'Oréal and Cisco. Ironclad Agent works across a company's contracts, deal history and negotiation knowledge, and integrations connect it to Salesforce, Coupa and Ramp. Ironclad holds SOC 1 and SOC 2 Type II reports and ISO 27001, 27017 and 27018 certification.
Questions buyers ask
Is Aerofiler an Ironclad alternative?
Buyer roundups list Ironclad among the leading alternatives to Aerofiler. Each manages the contract lifecycle, while Ironclad targets large enterprises with agentic contracting and Aerofiler targets teams that want a repository, extraction and approvals without heavy setup. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How is Aerofiler priced?
Aerofiler sells Starter, Standard and Enterprise plans with published features and no published prices, quoted after a demo. A free trial needs no card details. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which of the two integrates with Salesforce?
Each does. Aerofiler connects natively to Salesforce in a few clicks, alongside Microsoft Teams, Slack and Google Drive, and Ironclad integrates with Salesforce as well as Coupa and Ramp. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How do Aerofiler and Ironclad compare on security certification?
Aerofiler's ISMS is certified to ISO 27001 and audited every year by an accredited body. Ironclad holds SOC 1 and SOC 2 Type II reports and ISO 27001, 27017 and 27018 certification. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything on it comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.
Aerofiler Pty Ltd is based in Sydney. Buyer roundups such as SpotSaaS list Ironclad among Aerofiler's alternatives. Neither vendor reviewed this page.