Agiloft vs DraftPilot: how they compare in 2026
Agiloft Astra and DraftPilot both offer contract review in Word, reusable review standards, and analysis across agreements. Their entry packages and administration differ. Astra has a free tier with Word review, three custom playbooks, and a separate monthly allowance for analysis. Expert and community Screens provide additional starting standards, and the product can connect with Agiloft's broader CLM. DraftPilot starts Pro with an annual package for at least three users and a separate advisory fee. Its emphasis is a shared legal standard with workspace permissions, approved business reviewers, and an explicit route for exceptions. The practical choice is therefore partly about the first deployment: Astra supports an immediate review entry point with measured analysis consumption, while DraftPilot packages a team review process with onboarding and playbook support. The surrounding Agiloft CLM is a separate purchase scope from Astra alone.
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.
DraftPilot's main product is model driven review and drafting inside Word. A selected playbook supplies preferred positions and fallbacks; the AI identifies departures, proposes language, and explains changes to the reviewer. The same models generate playbooks from past work and support conversational drafting, comparison, and research. Mass Review uses AI to answer questions across agreements and connect findings with source language. Conventional functions such as workspaces, permissions, and file conversion support that workflow, but they are not an independent contract management system. Removing the models would remove the review, analysis, and drafting service that customers buy.
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.
AI Chat uses a curated legal network containing legislation, secondary sources, and commentary, with general web access excluded from legal research. Its research guide instructs users to specify the jurisdiction and inspect the list of source links used in an answer. Research can then become proposed changes to the contract, subject to reviewer acceptance. Mass Review separately lets users inspect the contract language underlying a table result. Published totals for the research network differ between the FAQ, guide, and trust center. No reproducible accuracy test, source freshness method, or systematic citation treatment results accompany those totals.
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.
The enterprise workflow divides authority between legal and approved business reviewers. Legal owns playbooks, permissions, acceptable positions, and escalation rules; procurement or contract managers perform a bounded first review on agreed contract types. Issues outside the approved route return to legal or the appropriate specialist with the clause and business context. The product proposes tracked edits and comments in Word, which authorized reviewers can edit, accept, or reject. DraftPilot expressly describes this arrangement as something other than autonomous contracting. Its control boundary is organizational approval and exception routing, rather than a published numeric model confidence threshold.
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.
Axiom's 2025 white paper describes an eight week pilot in which 18 volunteer attorneys used DraftPilot on client work after an evaluation of eight suppliers. Evidence came from surveys, product analytics, participant calls, and feedback sessions. Forty four percent of participants reported time savings in the 40 to 60 percent band, while 16 of 18 reported moderate or significant improvement in work quality. The vendor's case study also separates tasks such as drafting, issue spotting, and summaries. These are reported observations from motivated volunteers, not a randomized benchmark. Raising Cane's provides another named deployment involving real estate positions and lease review.
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.
DraftPilot states that customer material does not train its models or public models, and its security guide says original contracts are not stored after analysis. Playbooks remain in the customer's workspace, with permissions controlling their use and editing. OpenAI inputs and outputs receive the stated zero retention arrangement. The broader trust center also names Anthropic and lists 30 days for generated redlines and comments, which narrows the general no retention headline. No accessible commitment directly addresses attorney client privilege or work product. The linked customer terms require sign in, and the trust center requests access before releasing the service agreement or DPA.
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.
The enterprise operating model keeps legal judgment with lawyers and approved specialists. Procurement and contract managers may conduct an initial review only within legal's chosen contract types, positions, and escalation rules. Suggested language remains subject to acceptance, and exceptional issues return to the legal team. This division keeps assistance separate from professional judgment and reserves consequential advice for legal. The research guide also asks the user to state a jurisdiction and intended use. Public pages do not define professional eligibility by jurisdiction or connect those controls to specific competence and supervision duties.
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.
DraftPilot's trust center publishes principles covering privacy in product design, human empowerment, and transparency through security certification. It also describes output protection, operational guardrails, and grounding of AI Chat in a verified source network. Those statements give a direction for responsible use but do not identify an accountable model owner, a release evaluation procedure, or results across languages and contract types. An AI Governance Policy is listed among resources that require access approval, so its contents cannot establish additional public controls. Customer playbooks and escalation rules govern a customer's review process; they do not disclose the vendor's own model testing.
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.
Public resources distinguish contract analysis from stored customer configuration. The security guide says playbooks normally reside on AWS in Ireland and describes immediate deletion of OpenAI API inputs and outputs. The AI posture page separately lists 30 days for generated redlines and comments. Administrators use SSO, SCIM, workspaces, and permissions to control access. Twelve subprocessors are named with service roles, including hosting, model, email, analytics, and business operations providers. Encryption is specified for transit and storage. However, a complete deletion process for retained playbooks, a binding incident notification period, and the DPA terms are not available in the readable public material.
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.
DraftPilot links to customer terms on SharePoint, but the linked document leads to a Microsoft sign in page. Its public trust center lists a Master Services Agreement and DPA behind an access request. As a result, no readable contract establishes liability caps, indemnity scope, an AI output warranty, or remedies for an incorrect clause or research answer. This is an access limitation, not evidence that the negotiated agreement lacks those provisions. The published review workflow allocates final decisions to authorized people, but that operational allocation does not reveal what financial responsibility DraftPilot accepts when its service makes an error.
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.
The Microsoft Word connection has a described installation and editing path. Users install the add in through AppSource or central IT deployment, open it from the Word ribbon, and work with the agreement already being negotiated. Proposed language becomes native tracked changes, while explanatory comments accompany the edits. Reviewers can accept, reject, or alter individual suggestions and handle later rounds by focusing on counterparty changes. AI Chat can insert drafting or tables into the same file. Workspaces and identity controls manage product access. No comparable public sync specification describes a connection to a legal document management repository.
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.
DraftPilot is delivered through a Word add in and a browser interface, with hosted services handling analysis and team configuration. Its security guide places default playbook storage on AWS in Ireland and offers United States only hosting on Enterprise. The subprocessor list separately identifies Heroku in Ireland and OpenAI and Anthropic in the United States. Those provider locations do not establish where every model request is processed. The guide's OpenAI zero retention statement addresses persistence, not processing geography. Public materials therefore identify hosting choices and part of the provider chain without a complete regional account for all AI tasks.
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 public trust center names SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001, with an ISO 27001:2022 certificate and a SOC 2 report listed as resources. Both require access approval, so their audit periods, organizational scope, and qualifications are not visible in the accessible pages. GDPR and UK GDPR are presented as compliance frameworks rather than independent security certifications. Additional resources include a network diagram and CAIQ Lite questionnaire, also behind requests. Product pages specify AES 256 encryption at rest and TLS 1.2 in transit. These published controls support the security description but do not replace examination of the underlying reports.
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.
The main FAQ identifies OpenAI as the provider behind the contract workflow. The trust center supplies a broader inventory: GPT 4 Turbo with an April 2024 version identifier, and Anthropic Claude 3.5 Sonnet with an October 2024 identifier, both accessed through APIs. The subprocessor list confirms both companies and associates them with AI services. The security guide explains OpenAI's zero retention arrangement, but does not extend that provider specific statement expressly to Anthropic. Public material does not map every feature to its active model or commit to customer notification when a model changes. The inventory therefore discloses providers without a complete change framework.
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.
DraftPilot Pro starts at £7,200 per year for a minimum of three users, equivalent to £2,400 per user annually. A separate Customer Success Advisory Fee applies without a published amount. Everyday review and chat are unlimited under the package, while Mass Review includes an allowance and optional additional capacity. Pro includes playbooks, workspaces, identity controls, onboarding, and optimization support. Enterprise uses a negotiated organization package with tailored deployment and ongoing support. The posted subscription amount is therefore a real entry point, but it is not the complete first year cost because advisory charges and additional portfolio analysis remain unspecified.
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.
DraftPilot primarily addresses corporate legal departments handling repeatable commercial agreements. Its enterprise workflow also supports procurement teams and contract managers operating within legal's approved boundaries. The playbook materials cover agreements such as NDAs, services contracts, statements of work, data processing terms, and reseller arrangements. Axiom's deployment extends the audience to lawyers delivering client services, while Raising Cane's demonstrates lease and real estate work. The FAQ describes review across more than 58 languages, including applying a playbook in a different language from the agreement. That breadth is not accompanied by a jurisdiction by jurisdiction account of supported law or tested performance.
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.
DraftPilot's FAQ says neither it nor OpenAI uses customer data to train models. Its security guide extends that position to contracts and interactions, while the trust center repeats a no training policy. The public customer terms lead to a sign in page and the service agreement requires access approval, so no matching contractual prohibition was verified. The policy is explicit, but the readable evidence does not establish the scope of a binding customer term.
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.
The AI posture page distinguishes original contract analysis, marked as having no retention, from generated redlines and comments, which it assigns a 30 day period. The security guide separately says playbooks are stored and OpenAI API inputs and outputs are deleted immediately under its zero retention agreement. These statements concern different data layers. No public setting lets a customer shorten the stored suggestion period or apply zero retention across playbooks and generated work.
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.
Workspaces organize individual and team playbooks, and administrators determine who may view, use, or edit them. This gives legal a way to separate ownership of approved positions from business use of those positions. The public instructions do not establish matter based retrieval restrictions, conflict walls, or inheritance of a document management system's permissions. Playbook access controls therefore provide a narrower form of separation than a documented ethical wall around client files.
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.
No readable public commitment establishes whether DraftPilot tells a customer before responding to a subpoena or other demand for customer material. The current terms and privacy links lead to SharePoint sign in, while the trust center's service agreement and DPA require access approval. Its security controls and no training policy do not answer this notice question. The finding records the access limit and does not determine what the negotiated agreement might promise.
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.
The research guide describes a curated network containing legislation, secondary sources, and legal commentary across more than 150 jurisdictions; the FAQ gives a larger jurisdiction total. Answers expose the links used, so the reviewer can inspect their immediate basis. A public inventory of named collections, licensing permissions, and update schedules is not supplied. The product therefore describes geographic reach and source categories more clearly than the rights and maintenance arrangements behind the research network.
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.
DraftPilot gives users a source list for research answers and asks them to identify the relevant jurisdiction. Those links allow inspection of the cited material, but the public research guide does not describe subsequent case history, treatment flags, or a licensed citator. A real source can still be superseded or limited by later authority. No product mechanism for resolving that separate currency question was identified in the research, FAQ, or trust material.
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.
The trust center describes grounding and output safeguards, but it does not specify an abstention response when the curated network cannot support an answer. The Issues Report assigns risk to contract departures; that risk describes the agreement against a playbook, rather than model confidence or missing support. Reviewers can reject suggestions and inspect sources, yet those human controls do not show that the system itself refuses an unsupported legal assertion.
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.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin contains no entry naming DraftPilot or Draft Pilot. The database concerns judicial decisions involving hallucinated AI material and records implicated tools when identified. DraftPilot does provide legal research as well as contract drafting, so source accuracy remains relevant even though its principal workflow concerns negotiation. The absence of a named case does not test its research answers, proposed clauses, or handling of later legal authority.
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.
DraftPilot gives legal control over approved positions, access rights, and exceptions, and it describes a supervised role for business reviewers. Those operating controls address practical oversight, but the published enterprise and research materials do not map them to a named bar opinion or jurisdiction's professional conduct guidance. In particular, no client consent method or fee treatment framework is tied to a specific professional rule. Product supervision should therefore be distinguished from demonstrated guidance alignment.
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.
Axiom's published DraftPilot offering attaches a $250 monthly technology fee to qualifying client engagements and explains that its lawyers use the tool to save time on contract work. Its white paper explicitly presents those gains as a client benefit. This identifies a disclosed software charge reaching the client through the legal service arrangement, rather than only an internal corporate efficiency claim. DraftPilot's own subscription pricing is separate, and no universal billing policy for other customers is stated.
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.
A public register names 12 providers and their roles, including OpenAI, Anthropic, hosting, email, analytics, and business support services. The trust center also exposes policy summaries and lists a service agreement, DPA, security reports, and governance policy for access requests. These resources provide material for vendor diligence. They do not include a complete client notification or consent package explaining how a law firm's proposed use satisfies a particular client's outside counsel requirements.
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.
Word tracked changes and comments preserve proposed revisions, while research answers expose their source links and the Issues Report identifies clauses, problems, risk, and possible responses. These are useful components of a review record. Inserted changes appear under the user's Office name, so the file alone does not label which work came from AI. No single export combines the generating model, retrieved authorities, and human verification for a court disclosure.
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
- The initial rollout needs a free Word review option with a small custom playbook allowance.
- Expert and community Screens are useful starting points for the team's review standards.
- Analysis consumption should scale separately from ordinary Word review activity.
Choose DraftPilot if
- The purchase covers a legal team of at least three users with onboarding and playbook support.
- Approved business teams need workspaces and permissions tied to legal's exception process.
- Users need unlimited custom playbooks within the published Pro package.
In summary
Agiloft
Astra combines Word redlining with Screens and portfolio analysis. Its free plan permits Word review without consuming the allowance used for analysis, a purchasing detail identified by the AI Legal Index. Teams can use expert or community standards and create their own Screens. Paid plans expand analysis and playbook capacity, while the Advanced package adds enterprise services. Agiloft's separate CLM provides configurable agreement workflows and connections with business systems.
DraftPilot
DraftPilot's Pro package includes unlimited custom playbooks, team workspaces, identity controls, and everyday review, with separate Mass Review capacity. The AI Legal Index highlights its distinction between legal's authority to maintain a position and a business reviewer's permission to apply it. Redlines, explanations, and research support stay close to Word negotiation. The annual starting subscription covers three users, and the additional Customer Success Advisory Fee is not priced publicly.
Questions buyers ask
What does Astra's free plan include for a small team?
It includes unlimited team participation, Word review and redlining, three custom playbooks, and 1,000 analysis credits per month. Portfolio analysis consumes the allowance; Word review does not. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which charge sits above DraftPilot's starting subscription?
A Customer Success Advisory Fee applies in addition to the Pro annual package. The site publishes the £7,200 starting subscription for three users but not the advisory fee amount. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Can an organization use Astra with Agiloft's contract workflow?
Agiloft offers Astra to CLM customers through its AI on the Inside package. That connects review and analysis to the broader agreement system, which has its own commercial scope. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How are DraftPilot's standard reviews and Mass Review packaged?
Pro provides unlimited everyday review and chat, together with included Mass Review capacity. Additional portfolio capacity can be purchased through separate packages. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 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 acquired Screens in 2025, and its current Astra offering carries that review approach. Astra pricing and capabilities here are distinguished from the complete Agiloft CLM platform.