Agiloft vs Contractzy: how they compare in 2026
Agiloft offers two related entry points: Astra for contract review and analysis, and its broader configurable CLM platform. Astra applies Screens to agreements, suggests redlines in Word, and answers questions across a portfolio. Its free plan includes Word review without consuming the separate analysis allowance. Contractzy packages review within a contract workflow that also handles approvals, signature, storage, and obligation tracking. CORA evaluates language against editable guidebooks and turns commitments into assigned work. A team seeking an immediate Word review tool can therefore begin with a different part of Agiloft's offering than a team buying enterprise CLM. Contractzy's user and contract packages address the latter operational purchase. The prices need the same distinction: Astra Pro's published starting amount and Contractzy's risk add on are partial product prices, while a complete CLM deployment requires the relevant commercial quote.
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 Trainer, ConvoAI Document Q&A, the GenAI Prompt Lab, generative redlining and Screens are sold as AI Applications on top of Agiloft's contract lifecycle management platform. The platform's workflows, repository, approvals and integrations predate them. The Services Agreement defines AI Applications as functionality made available as part of the subscription and specified in the order. The Supplemental Terms govern them as a separate add on class. The models drive these features, and the CLM itself runs without them.
CORA AI powers contract risk analysis, summarization, metadata extraction, and obligation management inside a broader contract lifecycle platform. Review starts with company guidebooks, while extraction turns scanned PDFs, images, and Word files into searchable information. Obligation management creates owners, milestones, deadlines, and renewal alerts from agreements. Templates, clause libraries, approvals, signatures, version history, and the repository remain useful without model inference. Essentials and Professional also separate conventional contracting functions from the fuller AI package in Enterprise. The models therefore run substantial review and analysis functions, while established workflow and storage features remain a separate part of the product.
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.
ConvoAI Document Q&A ties each answer to the passage in the contract that supports it and lets the user jump to the highlighted text, which the vendor calls white box AI. Section 9.3(c) of the Services Agreement states that AI features exhibit varying degrees of accuracy. The Supplemental Terms require the customer to check output independently. Agiloft publishes no accuracy figure, test set, benchmark or evaluation. The tool reads the customer's own contracts rather than primary law, so questions of legal authority do not arise.
Risk analysis highlights ambiguous clauses and departures from company guidebooks, then lets reviewers inspect changes through tracked redlines. CORA AI also extracts parties, dates, monetary terms, and obligations from uploaded agreements. Accuracy claims include 98% for risk detection, 95% or more for metadata extraction, and up to 99% in the pricing FAQ, without a defined evaluation set or error breakdown. The contract text supplies context, but a retrieval method with linked primary legal authority and citation treatment is unspecified. Severity labels describe contractual risk rather than confidence in an answer. Critical decisions still call for human review under the pricing guidance.
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.
Agiloft's AI features are built so that a person reviews what the models produce. Generative redlining proposes insertions and deletions against approved clause language for a negotiator to accept. Agiloft's own product lead describes it as best used where the language differs in substance, not for minor edits. AI Trainer lets a firm decide what the review model looks for, and ConvoAI answers link to the source text so a user can verify them. Section 2.3(c) of the Services Agreement makes the customer solely responsible for evaluating output. Agiloft does not publish a threshold at which any AI Application acts without a person, or a route for correcting a wrong output beyond the customer's own review.
Reviewers upload a Word or PDF guidebook or generate one with AI, scan an agreement, and inspect highlighted risks and tracked revisions. Editable guidebooks encode company requirements, and alerts identify departures or high risk clauses. Contracts failing mandatory criteria are prevented from advancing until compliance is ensured. Legal teams retain control over precise edits, with approval routing and version history supporting review before execution. The pricing guidance recommends human review for critical decisions. The remaining uncertainty is the control path after an incorrect classification: the criteria configuration, override permissions, and escalation route for an AI error are not specified.
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.
The vendor states a 99.6 percent implementation success rate without saying how it is measured, and describes its customers as some of the largest companies. The pages carrying these claims name no customer deployment. The site navigation also links a customer stories page and the Pacesetter awards.
Legal leaders at Bajaj Markets, Bridgestone, and Easebuzz describe actual use of the platform. Manish Jain emphasizes responsive support; Reni Verghese describes managing contracts against timelines; Nitin Bhuwania describes reducing administrative effort and retrieving executed agreements after digitization. These accounts identify customers and concrete activities, although they do not supply dated before and after measurements. Separate CORA AI claims include an internal study of faster summarization and improved extraction, without a disclosed sample or method. Implementation generally takes two weeks to one month depending on integrations, customization, and migration. That estimate describes rollout effort rather than a measured customer outcome.
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.
Section 2.3 of the Services Agreement and section 1 of the Supplemental Terms provide that customer data is not used to train AI Applications or AI Models without the customer's explicit prior written consent. Section 4.3 extends that consent requirement to developing or improving the services at all. The platform is offered single tenant or multitenant by order, and section 2.2 confines Agiloft's use of customer data to providing and maintaining the services. Section 14.3 deletes customer data within thirty days of termination, and section 4.2 allows export at any time. Microsoft Azure OpenAI is named as a subprocessor, and its temporary storage of input and output for abuse monitoring is disclosed. AI service providers are defined as those on the published subprocessor list. The agreement does not address attorney client privilege or work product.
The agreement limits personal data use to delivering, maintaining, securing, and improving the contracted services under customer instructions. It covers contract files, attachments, metadata, communications, approval records, and access logs, and rules out selling customer data or unrelated advertising uses. Subprocessors must accept protections at least as strong as the agreement. Role permissions restrict visibility to authorized departments and users, while production access follows least privilege. The improvement permission contains no explicit model training exclusion. Privilege preservation, work product treatment, matter isolation during retrieval, and foundation model retention commitments remain unspecified, so these provisions do not settle every confidentiality question for a law firm.
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.
Section 9.3(b) of the Services Agreement states that Agiloft is not an attorney or law firm or a substitute for one. It adds that Agiloft does not provide advice, explanation, opinion or recommendation about legal rights, remedies, defenses, options, selection of forms or strategies. Section 9.3(c) and the Supplemental Terms state that AI output may be inaccurate and must be verified independently. The product is sold to legal and procurement teams. Agiloft's published terms do not describe how the product supports a supervising lawyer's duties, and name no jurisdiction limit beyond export control.
Legal departments use CORA AI to identify contractual risks, make edits, and manage approvals, while procurement, sales, finance, and HR users share the broader workflow. Human decision authority is explicit in the product positioning, and critical decisions are subject to a recommendation for human review. The CORA AI introduction also directs customers to consult their legal departments about regulatory implementation. Those operating instructions do not establish an advice versus software boundary, permitted legal jurisdictions, or a position on unauthorized practice. The software terms disclaim warranties generally without a specific legal advice disclosure. Nonlawyer participation is supported without a corresponding professional responsibility framework.
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.
The vendor markets white box AI that shows its reasoning by linking answers to source text. The Supplemental Terms bind customers to the Microsoft AI Code of Conduct, OpenAI usage policies and the AWS responsible AI policy, and section 3 warrants that insights from usage data are anonymized. Agiloft's terms and product pages set out no responsible AI framework of its own, no ISO 42001 or equivalent standard, no description of testing before release and no statement about uneven output. They name no accountable owner for AI governance. Agiloft also runs a trust portal at trustportal.agiloft.com.
The CORA AI introduction describes pretrained language models refined through legal expert feedback, regular updates, and testing across legal scenarios. That establishes a quality aspiration but leaves release criteria, review ownership, evaluation sets, and results across contract types or jurisdictions unspecified. The model training description refers broadly to contracts, legal materials, and precedents rather than a traceable evaluation program. Prajot Borkar is the named data protection officer, responsible for privacy compliance; that role does not establish accountability for model behavior. Company guidebooks let customers impose their own contract policies, but they are distinct from governance of the vendor's models and training process.
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.
Section 14.3 of the Services Agreement deletes customer data within thirty days of termination unless law requires longer, and section 4.2 allows export at any time. A subprocessor list is published at a stated URL, and AI service providers are defined by reference to it. Section 16.2 commits to emailed notice of updates to the list. The Supplemental Terms disclose Microsoft's temporary storage of AI content for abuse monitoring. Section 5.1 commits to organizational, physical and technical precautions against access by employees and subcontractors. Agiloft also publishes a security page and a trust portal. Section 5.3 gives the customer a route for reporting incidents, and an incident notification commitment sits in the DPA.
The May 2026 agreement identifies eight subprocessors and their functions, including AWS for hosting, Bedrock inference, and Textract processing. Controls include encryption, least privilege access, internal multifactor authentication, audit logs, restricted production access, monitoring, and backups. Incident procedures cover identification, investigation, management, and response. Customer notification follows a confirmed personal data breach without undue delay where legally required, rather than an unconditional fixed deadline. Data remains as long as needed for service, legal, dispute, or security purposes. Return or deletion follows a written request at termination within a commercially reasonable timeframe, with unspecified backup schedules and legal exceptions.
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.
Section 10.1 of the Services Agreement, version 1.2 of 22 July 2026, gives an indemnity for intellectual property infringement. A second indemnity covers unauthorized disclosure or misuse of customer data resulting from a breach of the data use or security obligations. Section 10.2 sets out exclusions, and the mitigation remedies include a pro rata refund. Section 11 caps each party at twelve months' fees and raises the cap to three times that for breaches of the security, confidentiality and compliance sections. Gross negligence, willful misconduct, fraud and the indemnities sit outside any cap. Section 9.2 warrants material conformity, with a remedy of repair or refund. The Supplemental Terms state that AI output is provided as is and that Agiloft has no liability for any damages arising from use of output. Neither document mentions insurance.
The software terms cap the operator's and suppliers' liability at the amount the client actually paid. Service comes as is and as available, with broad exclusions for warranties, fitness, noninfringement, accuracy of performance, and correction of errors. The agreement does not attach an indemnity, insurance commitment, or enforceable accuracy warranty to CORA AI output. It also excludes responsibility for incomplete or corrupt backups and places independent backup responsibility on the client. India is the defined country for governing law, with informal dispute resolution first. These terms allocate general software risk without promising a remedy for an incorrect contractual recommendation.
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.
The Integration Hub is an embedded integration platform powered by Workato. Agiloft states that the hub connects its platform to hundreds of other systems through connectors and recipes. Public help documentation sits on the Agiloft wiki, and the Services Agreement addresses Third Party Services. The pages describing the hub cover its depth in general terms and do not say what a firm must configure or which systems sync in which direction. Agiloft also publishes an integrations page.
Salesforce users can create, approve, and sign contracts within their CRM, while HubSpot data can generate agreements and feed approval and signature steps. Oracle supports contract creation and management, and Jira tickets initiate creation and approvals. Slack brings contract updates and actions into team conversations; Gmail supports workflows from the inbox. DocuSign, Adobe Sign, and UAE Pass provide signature connections, with Zoho also supporting contract generation and tracking. Custom APIs and integrations are available. Field mappings, authentication setup, synchronization conflicts, and permission propagation are not described, so the connection list does not establish a complete implementation specification for each workflow.
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 Services Agreement defines the core platform as available on a single tenant basis, meaning a dedicated cloud environment for one customer, or on a multitenant basis. The order selects between them. An EU Data Act addendum exists for EU customers. The published terms state no region list, hosting provider or processing location for the AI providers. Additional security resources are available through Agiloft's trust portal.
AWS cloud hosting is the standard delivery route, with an additional single tenant cloud option and deployment on customer premises. Implementation scope depends on integrations, migration, and customization, and Enterprise includes custom integration and deployment options. The agreement identifies AWS operations as global, including India, Singapore, and the United States, while other processors operate in additional global locations. Cross-border safeguards may include applicable standard contractual clauses. These locations describe the processor network rather than selectable customer residency regions. The division between contract storage, model inference, OCR processing, and backup locations is not specified for each deployment option or subscription tier.
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.
Section 5.2 of the Services Agreement states that Agiloft has completed audits by an independent auditor of the design and effectiveness of its security controls. Customers may obtain the reports through the trust portal at trustportal.agiloft.com, where they are treated as confidential information. The agreement does not name the audit standard, the auditor or the coverage period, or say whether a prospect can obtain a report without asking.
The company identifies itself as ISO 27001:2022 certified and describes encryption, AWS hosting, role permissions, and restricted production access. Its agreement adds TLS 1.2 or later, internal multifactor authentication, continuous monitoring, security alerts, and backup and recovery measures. On a reasonable written request, the company may provide existing compliance material, certifications, or third-party audit reports instead of a disruptive audit. A current certificate scope, validity period, and directly accessible report are not supplied with these statements. Generic security language and a badge do not establish the scope of a separate SOC 2 examination or an AI-specific assurance program.
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 Supplemental Terms name Microsoft Azure OpenAI Service as the provider behind certain AI Applications. They disclose that Microsoft temporarily stores input and output for abuse monitoring, with human review of flagged content. The incorporated acceptable use policies are Microsoft's, OpenAI's and AWS's, which identifies the set of providers. AI service providers are defined as those on the published subprocessor list, and section 16.2 commits to emailed notice of changes to that list. The terms name no model and state no inference location.
Amazon Bedrock supplies AI and machine learning processing, and Amazon Textract handles OCR and document processing within the AWS subprocessor role. CORA AI uses an array of pretrained language models and a training process involving legal contracts, materials, precedents, and expert feedback. This identifies infrastructure and broad architecture, while leaving the foundation model families, versions, routing rules, and fine-tuning arrangements unnamed. Subprocessors may change as technical or operational needs evolve. The agreement does not commit to advance model change notices or identify which model handles a particular risk review, summary, or obligation extraction. Provider locations likewise do not assign inference to a particular region.
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.
Astra has a free plan with 1,000 monthly analysis units and up to three custom playbooks. Word review and redlining do not consume those units. Pro starts at $120 per month with annual billing and offers larger analysis allowances and unlimited custom playbooks. Advanced has custom pricing, single sign on and dedicated support. The broader CLM subscription still uses an order specifying user types, quantities and additional services. Enterprise implementation is handled by Agiloft or a partner. The Astra entry rate does not establish the price of CLM deployment, its integration package or every enterprise configuration.
Essentials supports up to three users and 50 contracts each month; Professional allows up to ten users and 200 contracts; Enterprise starts above ten users with 500 monthly contracts. Each base subscription requires a quote. The pricing matrix lists Professional AI risk analysis at $40 per user per month, with up to 100 analyses monthly, while Enterprise includes 20 free reviews. Unlimited storage and distinct signature allowances accompany the plans. Reviewers need no additional license. Integrations, customization, migration, and deployment affect implementation scope, but their charges are not stated. The AI add-on figure therefore does not represent the total cost of running the platform.
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 and procurement functions and seven industries, and the product is sold to enterprises. The platform is offered single tenant or multitenant, with an EU addendum. The Services Agreement bars use for high risk activities. Agiloft's pages name no contract type or practice area as unsupported and describe no law firm use.
The primary audience is corporate legal operations alongside procurement, finance, sales, HR, compliance, and operational teams. Legal workflows include drafting, negotiation, risk review, approval, execution, repository retrieval, and ongoing obligations. Sector offerings include fintech, automotive, manufacturing, healthcare, software, real estate, logistics, and other commercial industries. Templates and guidebooks adapt review to company policies, while repository filters include jurisdiction, expiry, and contract value. Regional offerings span Europe, the Americas, Asia, and the Middle East, but a jurisdiction and language support matrix is unspecified. Litigation research, court filing, and consumer legal representation are not established parts of the contracting service.
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?
Training on customer data happens only if the customer affirmatively enables it, and the switch is written consent under the agreement. Agiloft's service and supplemental terms require explicit prior written customer consent before client content is used to train an AI model. Section 4.3 provides that Agiloft does not use customer data to develop or improve the services without the same consent. Usage data, defined to exclude the contents of customer data, may be used to improve the AI Applications.
The DPA allows personal data use for providing, maintaining, securing, and improving the services, subject to customer instructions. Contract files, attachments, and related workflow records fall within that processing scope. The improvement right has no explicit model training exclusion, while advertising profiling and unrelated commercial uses are prohibited. This is a contractual permission for improvement, not a statement that customer contracts actually train CORA AI.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Section 14.3 of the Services Agreement deletes all customer data, which includes input and output, within thirty days of termination unless law requires longer. Section 4.2 allows export at any time during the term. The Supplemental Terms disclose that Microsoft temporarily stores AI input and output for debugging and abuse monitoring. The terms set no shorter or configurable window for prompts and outputs during the term, and the customer cannot change the published period.
Personal data remains for as long as needed to operate the service, meet legal obligations, resolve disputes, and enforce agreements. Written requests at termination can trigger return or deletion within a commercially reasonable timeframe. Backup copies persist under unspecified schedules, with legal, security, and audit exceptions. No routine duration is assigned specifically to prompts, generated summaries, or review outputs while the subscription remains active.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The Services Agreement sets out separation at the tenant level. It defines single tenant as a dedicated cloud environment for one customer and multitenant as an environment that may be shared, with the choice made in the order. Section 2.2 confines Agiloft's use of customer data to providing the services. The agreement does not describe matter level or department level walls within a customer's instance, or how the AI Applications respect user permissions. Agiloft also publishes a security page.
Department and user permissions limit visibility into contract status, approvals, obligations, and renewals. The DPA also specifies role permissions, least privilege, and restricted production access. Neither provision explains how CORA AI retrieval enforces a law firm's matter walls or inherits permissions from an external document system. Single tenant deployment separates organizations, but does not by itself establish boundaries between conflicting matters inside one organization.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Section 7.3 of the Services Agreement permits disclosure of confidential information, which includes customer data, to the extent required by law. Where legally permitted, the receiving party must give the disclosing party prompt notice of the compelled disclosure and reasonable assistance should it wish to contest it. Section 5.1 refers to the same clause for compelled access to customer data. Agiloft publishes no transparency report.
The DPA requires prompt notice when a data subject requests access, correction, deletion, or another personal data right. That obligation concerns individuals exercising privacy rights, not subpoenas or government demands for customer contracts. The software terms and privacy provisions do not establish a separate commitment to tell customers before responding to compulsory legal process. Breach notifications are also a different event and do not settle this question.
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 is not built on a legal corpus. ConvoAI answers questions about the customer's own contracts with links to the source passage, AI Trainer learns from the customer's own documents, and generative redlining works from the customer's approved clause language. Agiloft's news releases and terms name no primary law source, license or update cadence.
Risk review uses customer guidebooks uploaded in Word or PDF, company playbooks, and the contract being analyzed. CORA AI's training description also refers to broad datasets of legal contracts, materials, and precedents. It does not identify a primary law collection, its licensing basis, or an update schedule for individual sources. A company policy guidebook supplies contractual positions, but does not establish the origin or currency of legal authorities.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
The product does not retrieve or cite primary law. Its output is contract answers, redlines and extracted data, and its published materials do not address checking authority for subsequent history.
CORA AI scans agreements for risky clauses and deviations from a company's guidebook, then presents severity labels and suggested revisions. No case treatment indicator or connection to a named legal citator accompanies that review workflow. Regular legal updates are a general training claim rather than a check on an authority's subsequent history. The human review recommendation concerns critical decisions and does not describe automatic verification that cited law remains valid.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
ConvoAI Document Q&A links each answer to the supporting passage so the user can verify it in the source, which the vendor markets as white box AI. The product documents how a user checks an answer rather than what the model does when it cannot answer. Neither the February 2025 release nor the terms state an abstention path or confidence signal for questions with no supporting passage. The terms require independent checking of every output.
Critical, high, medium, and low labels prioritize the contractual significance of a detected issue. They do not measure the model's confidence or describe what happens when an answer lacks support. Mandatory compliance criteria can stop a contract from advancing, but that workflow restriction is separate from an AI refusal to answer. The risk and summary workflows do not specify an unsupported-answer response or a grounding threshold shown to reviewers.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
As of October 15, 2026, the AI Hallucination Cases database has no tool entry naming Agiloft or its Astra product. An unrelated reference to AstraZeneca does not identify this contract software. Agiloft's playbook review and contract questions can still generate material requiring lawyer verification. The absence of a named court entry concerns the database's case coverage and does not measure the correctness of any particular generated clause or answer.
No court finding involving Contractzy, CORA AI, or The Legal Capsule appears in the AI Hallucination Cases database as of October 15, 2026. The current name and former brand produced no relevant match across its 2,191 entries. This dated result concerns reported proceedings. It does not establish that generated clauses or legal assertions are accurate, or rule out a proceeding outside that collection.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Section 9.3(b) of the Services Agreement addresses the line between tooling and legal advice, and the Supplemental Terms incorporate the AI providers' acceptable use policies. Neither the terms nor Agiloft's news releases name an ethics opinion, bar rule or professional responsibility framework, or any bar or regulator guidance on lawyers' use of AI.
The CORA AI introduction encourages customers to involve their legal departments when aligning implementation with regulatory requirements. Product guidance also recommends human review for critical decisions. These directions do not engage with a named bar opinion, client consent standard, or professional competence rule. The intended corporate legal audience and collaboration with nonlawyer departments are clear, while a jurisdiction-specific ethics mapping for use of AI in legal work remains unspecified.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The product is sold to legal and procurement teams inside companies, which bill no client, so it sits outside a lawyer to client fee relationship. Agiloft frames its savings in cycle time and negotiation loops rather than fees. Its materials do not address how AI assisted work is recorded or disclosed on a bill, and no law firm is a named buyer segment.
CORA AI is positioned for corporate departments managing their employer's contracts, alongside procurement, sales, finance, and HR. Faster review, metadata extraction, and obligation tracking reduce those teams' own administrative costs. That workflow does not ordinarily create a bill from outside counsel to a client. Subscription charges and AI add-on units price the software, while no client time-entry adjustment or legal fee disclosure feature is described for the core corporate use case.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
Agiloft publishes a current subprocessor list, and the Services Agreement defines AI service providers as the third party AI providers listed on it at a stated URL. The agreement commits to emailed notice of updates. The Supplemental Terms name Microsoft Azure OpenAI Service, disclose its content handling, and incorporate the Microsoft, OpenAI and AWS policies. The DPA is published. Together the terms give a firm material it could show a client.
The DPA names AWS, Razorpay, DocuSign, Zoho Sign, emSigner, Digio, OnlyOffice, and Mailgun with locations and purposes. AWS includes Amazon Bedrock for AI processing and Textract for OCR, giving procurement teams a concrete starting point for provider disclosure. Foundation model versions and a client consent package are unspecified. Subprocessors may change with operational needs, without a separate advance-notification period or customer objection process in the listed terms.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
ConvoAI's source linked answers let a user verify each answer inside the product. Agiloft's news releases and terms do not describe exporting a record of the model used, sources and human verification for a court, or certifying AI assisted work. The product produces no work product meant for court.
Tracked revisions, version history, contract audit trails, and approval records preserve parts of the drafting and review process. Legal teams can see changes and updates as agreements move through the lifecycle. Those records do not establish a per-contract export identifying the model, retrieved sources, and a human's verification of each AI result. The platform addresses commercial contract execution; a court filing disclosure or certification workflow is not specified.
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.
- Good Law Verification
- Bar Guidance Alignment
Which one fits
Choose Agiloft if
- A legal team wants to begin Word review using Astra's free tier and custom Screens.
- The same review service should support questions across a contract portfolio.
- Enterprise contract workflows need configuration alongside integrations through Agiloft's Integration Hub.
Choose Contractzy if
- The buying unit wants agreement volume packages that encompass a complete contract workflow.
- CORA guidebook checks and ownership of extracted obligations match the team's daily work.
- The organization needs the option to run the contract system on its premises.
In summary
Agiloft
Agiloft Astra supports expert, community, and custom Screens for consistent contract review. It combines Word redlining with analysis of individual agreements or a portfolio. The AI Legal Index identifies the separate charging treatment of Word review and portfolio analysis as a material purchasing distinction. Astra's free tier includes three custom playbooks and an analysis allowance, while Pro expands those limits. Agiloft CLM adds configurable workflows and an Integration Hub for connecting agreement data with other business systems.
Contractzy
Contractzy supplies CORA risk review alongside contract creation, approval, signing, and storage. Teams can upload a guidebook or generate one, edit its positions, and use it to flag departures in incoming language. Its conversion of extracted obligations into assigned tasks is a workflow finding highlighted by the AI Legal Index. Summary and metadata tools support wider contract administration. Plans specify user and contract allowances, and available hosting arrangements include a dedicated cloud instance and customer premises.
Questions buyers ask
Does Astra's published Pro price cover Agiloft CLM?
No. Astra Pro starts at $120 per month with annual billing for contract intelligence. The broader CLM platform requires its own quote, including the relevant implementation and service scope. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which Astra activities consume analysis credits?
Analysis and extraction use credits according to volume and complexity. Contract review and redlining in Microsoft Word do not consume those credits. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How do Screens and guidebooks relate to review standards?
Astra uses Screens to apply expert, community, or custom review standards. Contractzy uses editable guidebooks to identify risk and departures from company requirements. Each supplies the positions against which an agreement is reviewed. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Can Astra operate within an Agiloft CLM deployment?
Yes. Agiloft offers Astra through its AI on the Inside package for CLM customers. That connects playbook review and analysis with the wider contract workflow. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 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.
Agiloft Astra and Agiloft CLM have different purchase scopes. Contractzy's published risk add on also does not state the total platform price. These amounts should be understood in the context of the services and allowances each covers.