Agiloft vs netLex: how they compare in 2026
Agiloft is a fit for teams that want extensive workflow configuration, custom extraction models and contract answers linked to highlighted source text. netLex combines contract operations with a strong Brazilian business context, service in Portuguese, English and Spanish, and explicit mappings from Salesforce or HubSpot fields into approved templates. The choice also turns on data handling. Agiloft's agreement requires prior written consent before customer data trains AI models and provides for deletion within thirty days of termination. netLex's privacy policy prohibits training on AI inputs, while its platform backups persist for five years. On that retention difference, AI Legal Index identifies a procurement issue that a storage region alone cannot resolve. netLex is attractive for coordinated legal and commercial workflows; Agiloft offers more published detail about configurable AI tools and consent in its service contract.
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.
netLex combines a contract lifecycle platform with AI for clause drafting, review, extraction and questions about agreements. Its OpenAI integration lets users simplify, translate or revise clauses with prepared or custom prompts. Review Agent compares incoming contracts with the customer's playbook, while Creation Agent turns an existing document into questionnaire fields and variables. Management Agent extracts dates, parties, amounts and obligations for portfolio monitoring. Those capabilities sit within a wider system of templates, approvals, negotiation, signatures and storage that can operate without generation. The June 2026 agent announcement also describes an early access program; creating templates from a description alone was still forthcoming.
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.
Review Agent compares clauses with a company playbook and explains departures from its standards. netLex also describes questions about contracts and attachments, including inconsistencies between the main agreement and a commercial appendix. These are useful sources of context, but the product materials do not demonstrate an openable citation for each answer or a method for validating cited legal authorities. No reproducible accuracy test, sample size or breakdown of missed risks is published. The terms explicitly warn that AI responses may be inaccurate, incomplete or unsuitable. A reviewer therefore has to compare proposed changes with the agreement and applicable law before relying on them.
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.
Administrators must enable the OpenAI functionality before users can access it, and customer policies govern its use. A reviewer can accept, edit or reject suggested wording, with the final contract remaining under human control. netLex describes additional approval steps for important negotiation changes and a Review Agent configured against the customer's clause rules and acceptable limits. Its July 2026 explanation distinguishes automated actions from human decisions in the history. The precise uncertainty level that stops an agent, mandatory escalation triggers and the procedure for undoing an erroneous downstream action are not published. The terms require users to assess AI results before adopting them.
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.
Gupy provides a named example of deployment with operational figures. In netLex's September 2026 account, Gupy simplified its commercial amendment language, introduced defined approval responsibilities and connected Salesforce before measuring changes in the first months. Average amendment completion fell from 38 to 25 days, while legal response time fell from 1.58 to 0.31 day. Amendments signed without customer changes increased from 16% to 60%. The account attributes the improvements to a combined process and integration project, not an isolated AI intervention. Exact observation dates, document counts and an independently reviewed measurement protocol are absent, limiting comparisons with other organizations.
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 privacy policy states that inputs supplied to netLex AI will not train the model, and the product description says drafting and review data are not retained by the AI service. Access controls use roles, corporate authentication and customer permissions. netLex describes agents as unable to reach information beyond the current user's access, with a separate customer environment. Contract storage nevertheless has its own lifecycle: deleted user records can leave name and email history, and backups remain for five years. The public terms do not directly promise preservation of attorney privilege or explain how model provider access affects work product protection.
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.
netLex is aimed at legal departments and the business teams working with them on company agreements. Its terms require users to assess the relevance, accuracy and suitability of AI results before adopting them for any purpose. They also state that AI cannot replace necessary human, legal, technical or professional analysis. The drafting interface supports this division by leaving acceptance or rejection of suggestions with the user. However, jurisdictional limits on automated legal opinions and a detailed account of lawyers' competence or supervision duties are not supplied. Corporate staff can initiate contracts and requests without being lawyers, making the configured approval route significant.
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.
netLex publishes principles for AI use in contracts: company playbooks, access permissions, traceable decisions and final human approval. It describes logs that distinguish automated decisions from human actions and presents these controls as part of its own design. That establishes an AI governance position, but not a full account of how the vendor tests its models. No named owner for model risk, release evaluation protocol, bias assessment across languages or results across contract types are supplied. The Information Security and Compliance Committee oversees security and privacy; its existence alone does not show accountability for uneven legal output or model behavior.
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 policy separates user data, customer agreements and AI inputs, and names the purposes for processing them. Users' personal data are deleted when their account or the customer contract ends, with limited identity history retained and backups kept for five years. Customers direct deletion of third party personal data in agreements. At termination, extraction is through REST APIs returning base64 content, so the customer needs its own conversion and storage capability. Published safeguards include encryption, role permissions, annual external penetration testing and an incident response team. A deadline for notifying customers of a breach and precise AI service retention exceptions are not supplied.
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 August 2025 terms place responsibility for AI results on the user and disclaim accuracy, completeness and suitability. They expressly exclude netLex's liability for decisions, actions and omissions arising from use of AI functionality. Separate provisions also disclaim losses from errors in generated agreements and third party service failures. If netLex is nevertheless held liable, the stated ceiling is the amount the customer paid for the platform during the preceding twelve months. No published AI output indemnity, professional liability insurance commitment or compensation mechanism for a harmful clause is provided. A negotiated software license may contain additional provisions unavailable in these public user terms.
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 and HubSpot integrations map CRM properties to variables in netLex contract templates. Customer identity, commercial amounts, payment terms, dates and opportunity stage can feed the agreement; the configured stage triggers generation. Contract creation history and the information used remain visible inside the CRM. Legal teams prepare the approved templates and the customer configures the field mapping and trigger. Gupy describes using this process for commercial amendments. netLex also supplies Slack notifications, directory authentication, signature connections and a REST API, with netLex Connect supporting custom input and output flows. Its announced MCP interface still lacks a separate public release confirmation.
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.
netLex runs on AWS and lets customers choose storage in the United States, Europe or South America. The privacy policy identifies the United States, Ireland and Brazil as contractual locations for storage or processing. It separately permits subcontracting and sharing with providers in other countries, including the United States. A selected repository region therefore does not establish that every AI request stays there. Backups are geographically distributed, without a separate public map of their locations. The native AI integration is with OpenAI, but its processing geography is not tied to each customer region. No customer hosted deployment option is described.
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.
netLex states that it holds ISO 27001:2022 certification and obtains SOC 2 Type I and Type II reports through recurring audits. The reports are available by request under a nondisclosure agreement. The public security description also specifies annual external penetration testing, static code analysis, component vulnerability analysis and separation of development, test and production environments. Production data are excluded from development and testing. These are more specific assurances than an infrastructure badge alone. However, the public text does not identify the SOC auditor, report observation period or exceptions. AWS's separate certifications should not be treated as independent coverage of every netLex AI function.
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.
OpenAI is identified as the provider behind netLex's native AI drafting and revision features. The privacy policy explains that the integration uses the OpenAI API, and the published supplier list also names OpenAI API and ChatGPT alongside AWS and other service providers. It does not identify a current model version for each agent or specify how those agents route tasks among models. Nor does it map OpenAI processing to the customer's selected storage region. Customers receive notice of privacy policy changes, but a distinct commitment to advance notice of model substitutions is absent. Newer agent features therefore need more detailed supply chain terms.
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.
The monthly subscription normally depends on the number of users and their access profiles. It includes implementation and automation of an agreed number of documents; additional document automation is priced according to project complexity. Native integrations, including electronic signature connections, are included, while integrations needing special configuration receive a separate project price. This explains the charging structure without publishing a per user rate, minimum contract value or an AI consumption allowance. A quote must distinguish ordinary platform access from any agent entitlement or usage charge. Public materials do not settle renewal increases, termination charges or the total cost of a large migration.
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.
netLex serves company legal, sales, procurement, finance and operations teams through contracts, powers of attorney, legal requests and related corporate records. Named customers include Ambev, Blip and Isaac, with Gupy illustrating commercial amendments generated from a CRM. Its templates and playbooks can cover supply agreements, employment contracts, confidentiality agreements and services contracts. The interface is offered in eleven languages and service is available in Portuguese, English and Spanish. Use in more than sixty countries describes geographic adoption, not verified legal coverage in each jurisdiction. The product does not publish an exhaustive set of supported laws, exclusions or a separate law firm matter management offering.
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.
netLex's privacy policy expressly says that data supplied to its AI functionality will not train the model. It identifies the OpenAI API as the integration used for drafting and reviewing clauses. This is a published policy promise, rather than a separately supplied negotiated AI agreement. The prohibition concerns AI inputs; it does not erase ordinary contract storage, user history or the five year backup period. The policy does not provide model specific audit results or an enforcement mechanism against every underlying provider.
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 product description says drafting and review data will not be stored, while the general privacy policy retains platform records under a separate schedule. User deletion or contract termination removes user personal data, subject to limited name and email history; backups persist for five years. Customers can request removal of third party personal data from agreements. These provisions distinguish transient AI processing from saved contract content, but do not enumerate provider abuse monitoring exceptions or a separate schedule for agent conversation histories.
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.
netLex describes AI permissions tied to the current user's profile and says agents cannot access data beyond what that person can see. It also describes a separate customer environment, with role permissions and corporate authentication supporting access control. This is a product permission model for corporate contracts, rather than inheritance of a law firm's document management system permissions. The materials do not describe adverse party conflicts, lateral hire screening or an administratively tested ethical wall between separate legal client matters.
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 policy permits disclosure in situations required by law or judicial decisions. It does not promise advance customer notification of a subpoena, an opportunity to contest the demand or a regular transparency report. A separate notification provision concerns a data subject asking netLex to delete information: the customer is notified so it can instruct the processor. That deletion procedure should not be read as notice of government access. The user terms also allow netLex to report suspected unlawful activity to authorities.
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 AI features work with customer contracts, attachments, clause playbooks and internal policies. They are not accompanied by an identified collection of licensed case law, statutes or commentary. OpenAI is named as a model provider, but the provider name does not establish the legal sources or licenses behind any generated proposition. Questions about company policy and departures from approved contract wording can have a useful internal reference base. They do not carry a published promise of comprehensive, current legal authority for a jurisdiction.
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.
netLex's clause review compares agreements with customer standards and can suggest revised wording. No citator integration, case treatment service or automatic validation of whether a cited decision remains good law is described. Its requirement that users assess AI accuracy before adoption is a general review obligation, not a documented legal authority validation workflow. A team using generated legal opinions would still need an external research source to assess authority, subsequent treatment and relevance to the law governing the contract.
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.
Review Agent flags departures from a configured playbook and explains their severity, while Intake Agent is described as routing complex requests to appropriate people. Neither description specifies when a model declines to answer because support is missing, how uncertainty is communicated or what happens when contract clauses conflict with its assumptions. The terms warn that results can be inaccurate and require human assessment.
They do not supply an abstention policy, confidence calibration or examples of a refusal when legal context is insufficient.
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 Charlotin collection contained 2,191 cases at this review, with no whole word match for netLex in either the tool field or the full case material. That result is limited to reported incidents included in the collection and does not measure the product's error rate. netLex primarily supports company agreements and internal legal requests, and its terms explicitly acknowledge that AI results may be inaccurate. A lack of a named reported incident does not make a generated legal citation reliable.
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 terms require users to evaluate AI output and preserve necessary human legal analysis. netLex also discusses privacy, access permissions and final approval by a legal team. It does not map these arrangements to a named bar association opinion, professional conduct rule or jurisdiction specific guidance on legal AI. Compliance with the LGPD and GDPR concerns data protection and does not establish professional responsibility alignment.
Lawyers remain responsible for applying the conduct rules that govern their practice and the particular use of generated work.
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.
netLex is sold for a company's own contracting and internal legal operations. The published savings concern productivity, amendment cycle time and business process costs, with subscription charges generally tied to users and their access profiles. Those claims do not describe lawyers charging external clients for time saved by AI. No legal fee allocation, client technology surcharge or invoice narrative is offered. Gupy's measured legal response time is an operational service level within a business, rather than a disclosure of billable legal time.
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 published supplier list identifies AWS, OpenAI, Microsoft, Google, Zendesk, signature services and other providers. The privacy policy explains AI input treatment, international transfers, deletion and the five year backup exception. Security reports can be requested under a nondisclosure agreement. These materials give a corporate team information to supply when a client asks about its technology, but do not constitute a named outside counsel approval workflow. The supplier list does not assign locations or detailed processing functions to every listed company.
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.
netLex describes version history, approval tracking and AI interaction logs that distinguish automated actions from human decisions. Its privacy policy provides a REST API route for exporting stored agreements and data when a customer contract ends. The public description does not specify an export joining each prompt, model version, response and lawyer review into a court disclosure record. Contract negotiation history can support internal reconstruction of a drafting decision, but it is not a published filing certificate or a complete account of AI assistance for a court.
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
- Custom review models and broad workflow configuration are major requirements.
- Reviewers want answers linked to highlighted agreement text.
- Written consent for model training and a short termination deletion period shape procurement.
Choose netLex if
- Portuguese language service is central to the operating model.
- Salesforce or HubSpot should supply approved agreement templates with commercial data.
- The same platform needs to handle contracts, powers of attorney and internal legal requests.
In summary
Agiloft
Agiloft brings AI Trainer, ConvoAI agreement answers, Word review and Workato integrations to a configurable contract platform. Its written terms address training consent, deletion and a higher liability ceiling for security and confidentiality breaches.
netLex
netLex supports a company's contracts, powers of attorney and internal legal requests, with AI clause revision and playbook review. CRM opportunities can generate agreements using customer configured variables and approval rules.
Questions buyers ask
How do Agiloft and netLex make contract answers reviewable?
Agiloft describes ConvoAI links to highlighted source passages. netLex describes playbook comparisons and contextual contract questions, but does not show the same openable citation method for each answer. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does netLex's nonretention statement cover saved contracts?
Its AI product promise concerns processing for drafting and review. The privacy policy separately covers saved platform records, including backups retained for five years after deletion. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Are Agiloft and netLex both priced by a public enterprise rate?
Agiloft publishes an Astra Pro starting amount, but that is not a price for a complete CLM deployment. netLex describes user and access profile based subscription charges without a public amount. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What data term most separates Agiloft from netLex?
For organizations with short retention requirements, AI Legal Index highlights Agiloft's thirty day termination deletion provision against netLex's five year backup exception. The signed agreement still needs to identify which records and services each commitment covers.
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's separate Astra pricing does not establish the cost of its enterprise platform. netLex's quote must specify document automation scope and newer agent entitlements.