Agiloft vs Leegality: how they compare in 2026
Agiloft is the stronger fit when the project centers on configuring an enterprise contract system across departments, with AI review and portfolio analysis as part of that environment. Leegality is more directly aligned with Indian execution journeys that combine clause checks, internal approval, Aadhaar signatures and stamp procurement. Both can bring review into Word, so the editor alone will not settle the choice. In its assessment, AI Legal Index identifies Leegality's configurable approval step before signing as a concrete control separating AI suggestions from execution. Agiloft offers a different entry path through Astra, whose free tier supports Word review before a wider CLM purchase. Its workflow platform and Integration Hub become relevant when contract information must circulate across several enterprise systems. The decision turns on whether Indian signing infrastructure or extensive CLM configuration is the main implementation problem.
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.
Leegality's original business is document execution, including Aadhaar signatures, stamp paper procurement, approval routing and delivery of completed agreements. Those services retain their purpose without generative models. AI Review adds clause analysis against rules defined by the legal or compliance team, explanations of deviations and suggested replacement language. Obligations AI extracts commitments and assigns their owners, while Smart Extraction fills repository metadata from uploaded agreements. These are identifiable applications of AI to legal work rather than a relabeling of signature automation. They remain features within a broader paperwork platform whose commercial offering also includes document fraud prevention and electronic bank guarantees.
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.
The AI review interface ties a finding to a customer rule and the relevant contract clause. Its example distinguishes requirements that are met, not met or not found, and displays the current clause beside a suggested replacement. That gives a reviewer useful context for deciding whether a contractual requirement has been satisfied. It does not establish legal correctness beyond the supplied rules. No measured error rate, benchmark dataset or independent validation method accompanies the clause review feature. Nor is there a described legal authority retrieval system that supplies primary cases or statutes and verifies their current status before a proposed revision is used.
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.
Legal and compliance teams define the rules that constrain AI Review, then inspect deviations and the reasons attached to them. The contract interface gives users separate actions to replace a clause or dismiss its proposed replacement. Leegality Reviewer adds a configurable approval gate: the sender assigns internal or external reviewers, who can approve or reject the agreement before it proceeds to the signer. Obligations AI separately uses configured obligation types, owners and email reminders. These controls distinguish automated extraction from human contract approval. Their protection depends on configuring the reviewer step; AI analysis alone does not turn a proposed contract into an approved agreement.
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.
Rupifi's in house counsel Satyanshu Mishra describes using Leegality's contract management product and its configuration options, with the vendor's support helping the team adopt the platform. That is a named legal user discussing the product rather than an unexplained customer logo. The broader execution business also reports IIFL Samasta increasing daily loans per branch from roughly 30 to 35 to roughly 40 to 45 after digitizing paperwork. Those operational figures concern the signing process, not the accuracy or speed of AI clause review. The contract testimonial has no dated baseline, review sample or measurement isolating the contribution of the models.
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.
Contract data is covered by an express product commitment against use in training any AI model. Leegality also states that AI review and obligation extraction read the agreement without retaining another copy, while the repository continues to hold the underlying contract. Its privacy notice describes encryption, approved access on a need to know basis and processing of signer data on customer instructions. These protections give corporate legal teams a concrete confidentiality position. They do not explain privilege preservation, separate law firm matters or the identity and contractual duties of the models underneath. Role restrictions on document execution are narrower than a documented ethical wall for AI answers.
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.
Leegality identifies itself as a software business rather than a law firm and addresses business, product, operations and legal teams. Its terms place responsibility for appropriate stamp duty, document enforceability and retention requirements on the customer. The service is framed around Indian law, and customers outside India are responsible for assessing local suitability. This gives a clear boundary around the provider's role in document execution. The AI feature nevertheless describes clause replacements as compliant with the customer's rules without a corresponding account of professional competence duties. No bar specific supervision framework explains how a lawyer should validate those suggestions before advising a client.
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.
Customer rule sets define what AI Review looks for in an agreement, but those rules are an application control rather than an account of how Leegality governs its models. There is no named AI governance owner, release testing program, bias assessment or report of differences in performance across languages and contract types. The platform's Indian language signing options and identity verification features do not answer those questions for clause interpretation. Information security certifications address a different set of controls. A legal team therefore receives a configurable review workflow without a published mechanism for assessing systematic model errors or the vendor's response when those errors recur.
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 privacy notice separates account data from document and signer information processed on customer instructions. It describes encryption during transfer and storage, access approval, monitoring and audits. Uploaded agreements remain for a period determined by customer settings or legal requirements, and the pricing feature list includes automatic purging of signed files. Several service providers and their purposes are named, including the hosting company, signature authorities and electronic stamping services. The AI product adds a commitment not to retain another document copy during processing. Missing pieces include named model subprocessors, a complete prompt and output retention schedule and a customer incident notification timetable.
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.
Leegality's standard terms disclaim responsibility for the contents and enforceability of agreements and do not warrant that service results will be accurate or reliable. The liability formula is the greater of INR 100 or fees associated with executing a document, excluding specified expenses and charges, subject to an aggregate ceiling of INR 10,000 per user. Consequential and other indirect losses are excluded. The indemnity runs from the user to Leegality, with no corresponding published protection for an erroneous AI revision. A separately signed agreement takes precedence, so enterprise buyers may have different provisions; the public terms themselves offer little recourse for faulty legal output.
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 Word extension has an explicit setup path through the Microsoft marketplace followed by a Leegality login. Users see assigned tasks in the sidebar, run rule based AI review and share agreements with counterparties from the editor. Guests can review online or download, edit and upload their version without creating an account. Outside Word, APIs connect document journeys to a customer's CRM, loan systems or HR software; webhooks return signed documents to customer servers. These are described transfers and actions, not just integration logos. Permission mapping, version conflict handling and a complete implementation account for each connected business system remain unspecified.
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.
Leegality operates a hosted platform accessed through its dashboard, Word extension or APIs. Both storage and processing of contract data are expressly restricted to servers in India, including AI review and obligation extraction. The privacy notice identifies Amazon Internet Services Private Limited as the hosting provider and likewise places personal data processing in India. There is no advertised alternative region for a customer to select, nor a published private installation offering. The geographic commitment therefore covers the available service rather than a menu of deployment tiers. It does not identify the individual model service or give a detailed account of backup locations within the country.
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 privacy notice names ISO 27001:2022, ISO 27017:2015 and ISO 27018:2019, alongside a SOC 2 Type II attestation covering security, availability and confidentiality. It describes recurring independent audits and separately refers to CERT IN empaneled auditors for Aadhaar and signature requirements. Leegality also provides a trust center entry point and offers its SOC report and auditor details on request. The public statements do not supply the attestation period, named auditor or an inspectable report establishing the full product scope. The standards are more specific than generic security badges, but their existence does not by itself validate the quality of AI contract interpretation.
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.
Neither the AI Review explainer nor the contract product description identifies the model family or inference provider used for clause analysis and obligation extraction. The privacy notice names the infrastructure host and several execution providers, but it does not distinguish an AI model service from general hosting. A commitment to processing in India and avoiding training on contracts addresses location and use of data, not the identity of the model supplier. There is also no published model change notification procedure. Customers can understand the review workflow while still lacking the information needed to assess a particular foundation model or its replacement.
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.
Basic execution has explicit transaction prices: INR 25 for each Aadhaar signatory and INR 15 for each non Aadhaar signatory. Digital stamping costs INR 45 per paper plus stamp duty and INR 500 per order, with a minimum of 30 papers; signing requires at least INR 100 of credits. The Basic account includes one user and one workflow. Advanced business features require a quote, and the advertised INR 300,000 annual budget dividing line is not an AI subscription price. A first flow can be configured and tested free, but implementation charges beyond that and the cost or allowance for AI Review are not published.
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.
Leegality focuses on Indian business paperwork, with named uses in banking, lending, microfinance, stockbroking, insurance, human resources and procurement. Contract examples include vendor agreements, master services agreements, nondisclosure agreements, employment letters and loan documentation. Legal teams can define their own compliance rules while business colleagues initiate work, approve it or sign. The terms and privacy notice explicitly center Indian law and leave overseas suitability to the customer. This is a clearer audience than a claim to serve every practice. It is not a published coverage map for litigation, specialist legal research or the full range of legal issues a generated clause might raise.
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.
Leegality promises that contract data used for AI review or obligation extraction is never used to train any AI model. That promise appears in its contract product explanation, rather than an express model training restriction in the standard terms. The incorporated privacy notice limits signer processing to customer instructions and permits analytics on usage information. It does not clearly grant a separate right to train on agreement content. The policy commitment consequently remains distinct from a negotiated contractual prohibition.
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.
Customers can control how long uploaded agreements are stored, subject to legal requirements, and automatic purging of signed files is an available feature. The AI workflow separately promises not to retain a copy of the contract it reads. Those statements do not establish zero retention for the whole account or every generated clause and processing log. The default schedule, backup removal period and exact treatment of prompts and outputs are not specified for the AI service.
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.
Execution roles restrict which team members can authorize documents, and the privacy notice describes access approvals based on need to know. Reviewers and approvers can also be assigned to a particular contract. These controls support differentiated access in a corporate workflow. They do not explain whether repository permissions are reapplied to every AI request, how separate clients are isolated, or how a lawyer excluded from one matter is prevented from receiving its content in an answer.
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 privacy notice allows disclosure when courts or other competent authorities legally require it. It supplies no corresponding promise to notify the affected customer before complying, contest an overbroad request or provide a recurring transparency report. General notices about privacy policy changes address a different event. The standard service terms also permit freezing transactions for regulatory obligations without prior intimation, so that provision does not supply an advance warning commitment for compelled access either.
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 defined inputs are customer contracts and compliance rules configured by the legal team. Leegality does not identify a legal research collection, enumerate its authority sources or explain licenses for statutes, judgments or commentary used by the underlying model. Its separate guides to Indian electronic signatures are educational resources, not a declared retrieval corpus for AI Review. A clause suggestion can follow the customer's rule without establishing the provenance of any additional legal knowledge used to generate it.
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.
A contract can be tested against a rule about governing law or another requirement, but no citator or judicial treatment service is identified. The interface's met, not met and not found labels describe compliance with the supplied checklist. They do not certify that a case remains good law or that a statutory requirement has not changed. Changes in law therefore need to be reflected in the team's rules and separately validated before a review result is treated as current legal advice.
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 review example labels a missing contractual requirement as not found and lets a reviewer dismiss suggested wording. That is useful handling of absent clauses, but it is not a model refusal policy. There is no described behavior for conflicting instructions, inadequate legal support, an unsupported jurisdiction or uncertain interpretation. Nor is a confidence measure accompanied by an escalation procedure for those circumstances. Human approval provides a workflow checkpoint while the model's response to insufficient knowledge remains unspecified.
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 October 16, 2026 review of the Charlotin database found no entry naming Leegality in either the AI tool field or the remaining case information. The product's main legal output is contractual language and rule analysis, rather than a court submission built from cited authorities. That use profile may affect how an incident would appear in a litigation database. Absence of a named case is not a measured accuracy result and does not establish that fabricated legal assertions cannot occur.
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 company explains Indian signature and documentation requirements and makes its software role distinct from a law firm. It does not connect AI Review's controls to a named bar opinion or a jurisdiction specific framework for lawyers' competence, confidentiality and supervision obligations. Banking and data protection compliance materials address separate regulatory duties. Configurable review approvals can assist a legal team's process, but the vendor does not map those features to professional conduct guidance for use of generative AI.
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.
The published commercial relationship is a business purchasing document execution and contract operations services. Pricing is based on signatures, stamp papers and quoted business features, rather than recording a lawyer's time or allocating an AI expense to a legal client. Leegality identifies business, product and operations teams as its usual buyers alongside legal teams. Its claimed paperwork savings concern corporate operating costs. No client billing ledger, disclosure template or law firm fee allocation workflow is described.
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 privacy notice names Amazon Internet Services, signature providers including CDSL and Protean, SHCIL, NeSL and WhatsApp Business, with their processing purposes. Some other categories remain generic, including SMS, payment and email providers. That supplies part of a procurement disclosure package but omits the model provider for AI clause review. Leegality also offers an information security questionnaire and audit rights through its enterprise arrangements. No prepared outside counsel AI disclosure package or complete legal client approval form is published.
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.
Executed agreements receive a secure audit trail recording the signing journey, and the contract interface preserves reviewers, remarks and recent activity. Those records may help explain who approved or signed an agreement. They do not amount to an export showing which model generated a clause, the prompt used or how counsel verified the output. Leegality promotes the signing record for court use, but no separate AI use declaration or complete model provenance export is described for a filing.
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
- Bar Guidance Alignment
Which one fits
Choose Agiloft if
- Your contract project requires extensive workflow configuration across legal, procurement and other departments.
- You want to evaluate Astra's Word review through its free tier before selecting a full CLM deployment.
- Your implementation depends on distributing contract data through Agiloft's Integration Hub.
Choose Leegality if
- Indian Aadhaar signing and digital stamp procurement are central to the agreement journey.
- You need reviewer approval, signing and automatic obligation reminders in one operational flow.
- Your organization wants an explicit India storage and processing commitment for contract AI.
In summary
Agiloft
Agiloft combines configurable contract workflows with Astra review, contract questions and portfolio analysis. Its Integration Hub links contract data to other business systems. Astra can be tried separately from a full CLM rollout, while enterprise deployment and implementation require their own scope.
Leegality
Leegality joins rule based clause review and obligation extraction to Indian digital stamping and electronic signatures. Legal teams assign reviewers before execution, then retain completed agreements in the repository. Browser, Word and API access support different ways of running that process.
Questions buyers ask
Can either product review a contract before a full platform rollout?
Astra offers a free tier with Word review. Leegality gives customers access to its contract features through the existing account and a commercial discussion, but does not publish a standalone free AI review plan. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does Leegality's Basic signing price include AI Review?
No published inclusion establishes that. Its INR 15 and INR 25 figures are per signatory execution prices. The commercial terms for AI Review and obligation extraction remain separate matters for the proposal. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How do their data use commitments differ?
Agiloft's published agreement restricts training without explicit prior written consent, while Astra also carries a no training promise. For Leegality, AI Legal Index records an express product policy against training on contract data, without treating it as an equivalent negotiated covenant.
Does a suggested compliant clause remove the need for legal approval?
Neither product establishes that. Agiloft presents AI as support for the final reviewer, and Leegality lets users inspect, replace or dismiss suggested wording before the configured approval and execution steps. 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.
This comparison covers contract review and lifecycle work. Signing prices and free AI entry tiers do not establish the cost of an equivalent enterprise deployment.