BoostDraft vs Definely: how they compare in 2026
Both products bring contract work into Word, but they organize the review around different tasks. BoostDraft retains an editor for formatting and internal references, adds a comparison tool for several file formats, and provides AI risk review against customer templates and policies. Its AI service also supports translation and masks confidential information before processing. Definely combines navigation and proofreading with Vault for precedent reuse, Enhance for contextual answers and Cascade for the consequences of a proposed change. The distinction matters most when a transaction involves interconnected clauses or related agreements: Cascade exposes why another provision may need attention, while Vault inserts language from the firm's repository. BoostDraft focuses review on deviations and practical editing tasks; Definely connects those edits to the structure and precedent behind a complex 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.
BoostDraft separates rule based editing from generative contract review. The established Word editor handles formatting, defined terms and internal references, while BoostDraft AI adds risk analysis, proposed revisions, summaries, translation and chat. The AI service can compare an agreement with a customer's template or policy and focus attention on deviations. Those tasks depend on models interpreting content, rather than simply correcting numbering. Removing the AI would still leave the editing product and BoostDraft Compare, which compares Word, PDF, Excel and PowerPoint files. The company began offering the AI review service in 2026 alongside those existing tools, making content analysis a distinct capability within the wider drafting product family.
Definely combines deterministic contract tools with generative analysis inside Microsoft Word. Read provides navigation through definitions and references, while Proof checks formatting and drafting errors. Vault retrieves precedent clauses from a connected repository. Enhance interprets contract language and proposes revisions, and Cascade follows the consequences of a change through related provisions. The company began with Word tools before adding modern generative AI, so navigation and proofreading retain a distinct function without models. The Claude connector extends those tools into another interface and describes its structural checks as reproducible. AI supplies content analysis and contextual drafting alongside the existing contract editor.
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.
BoostDraft AI uses lawyer supervised prompts and customer supplied templates or policies to identify contract risks and propose changes. The review can reflect the party's position and the organization's own standards, and highlights lead the reviewer to relevant text. That establishes context for a recommendation, without a measured legal accuracy result or a described retrieval process linking answers to primary authority. The company's review guidance recognizes that generated clauses can introduce fabricated obligations, unsupported concepts and inconsistent references. It calls for verification against the agreement and approved playbooks. No test set, hallucination rate or method for determining the legal correctness of a proposed revision accompanies the current AI service.
Enhance links its answers to specific clauses and definitions in the contract material under review. Definely describes clause level indexing, retrieval augmented generation and several agents working together, with analysis focused on the active agreement and related files. Read separately exposes internal references and definitions so the lawyer can inspect their source. The Claude connector describes its structural checks as deterministic and returns their results through Claude. These mechanisms connect findings with contract text, but no measured legal accuracy result, test set or hallucination rate establishes how reliably the generative layer interprets that text. A review speed claim does not measure answer correctness.
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.
The review workflow stays inside Word, where users inspect highlighted passages, move to the relevant text and apply proposed revisions or comments to the agreement. Customer policies and templates provide constraints for risk analysis, while the English feature description says the level of AI involvement remains under user control. BoostDraft's guidance assigns approval of business exceptions to people and treats generated language as draft material requiring legal review. These are concrete review surfaces and a stated division of responsibility. The product does not specify circumstances that automatically stop an unsupported answer or a route for escalating a faulty recommendation after it has been applied.
The lawyer works with findings inside Word and decides how to revise the agreement. Cascade exposes its reasoning about affected clauses, while Enhance offers contextual answers and suggested text that can be inserted into the contract. Definely describes AI as supporting defined tasks while leaving legal judgment with the reviewer. Its ISO 42001 framework also includes human oversight. These features provide an inspectable review surface and an expressed division of responsibility. The circumstances that stop an agent, the exact scope of unattended decisions and the handling of an erroneous recommendation remain unspecified. A target for automating manual work does not itself define those operational limits.
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.
Farella Braun + Martel and Silicon Legal Strategy describe using BoostDraft for proofreading, definitions, references and formatting. Silicon Legal reports approximately 10 percent less total contract review time, while Farella describes deployment through its internal software center and adoption among transactional lawyers. These accounts establish use of the editing product, but do not identify deployment of the AI review service introduced in 2026. The October announcement's 1,000 cumulative paying companies also covers all three services together. No named customer account or measured production result isolates the current generative review, translation or chat functions. The earlier editor's outcomes therefore remain distinct from the AI service's performance.
Definely identifies law firm and corporate users including Slaughter and May, Dentons, Shoosmiths, Shepherd and Wedderburn, Deloitte and Barclays. Its company material describes more than 150 enterprise customers and 40,000 active users in over 30 countries. The current home page includes a deployment account from Shepherd and Wedderburn's technology lead describing installation through Intune, alongside comments from legal and innovation leaders. The product also claims faster review, without connecting that figure to a dated customer study and a reproducible measurement method. Named adoption establishes use of the suite, while the contribution and error rate of each generative feature remain unmeasured.
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.
BoostDraft AI masks confidential information before transmitting content to AI. The stated examples include company names, addresses and transaction terms, and anonymization is included as a standard feature. The product description also says information from the file is not retained or used to train models. These are concrete handling commitments for the AI service, separate from the older editor's ability to work entirely on the device. The processing provider and contractual scope of the training prohibition are unspecified. No matter level access controls, privilege preservation process or work product treatment accompanies the description, and it does not establish the retention treatment of every chat or generated response.
Definely's terms require both parties to protect confidential information with at least reasonable care and to return or destroy it on termination or written request. The privacy policy identifies Azure as a processor of user content, while the trust center offers a data processing agreement and access control material through an access request. These provisions establish a confidentiality framework, but do not explicitly prohibit training models on client content. The privacy policy permits service improvement, and feedback receives a separate broad usage license. Matter separation, attorney client privilege and work product handling remain unspecified. Detailed AI security information requires access approval.
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.
BoostDraft is designed for legal professionals working on contracts, with lawyer supervised prompts and review inside Word. Its drafting guidance says people remain responsible for business judgment and approval of exceptions, and generated language requires legal review before it becomes part of a final agreement. That gives users an operational role in the workflow. The product and commercial terms do not establish a distinct boundary between software assistance and legal advice, identify jurisdictional restrictions on the service, or allocate professional responsibility through a specific ethics framework. Japanese, English and Korean analysis describe supported languages rather than authorization to provide legal services in those jurisdictions.
Definely addresses lawyers at large law firms and corporate legal departments handling complex transactions. Its product position retains legal judgment with the professional while using AI for defined contract tasks. Read, Proof, Enhance and Cascade provide review tools inside Word rather than a consumer advice service. The terms nevertheless do not set out a distinct no legal advice boundary or connect product controls to competence and supervision duties under named professional rules. Jurisdiction limits for use are also unspecified. The firm's markets across multiple countries and its focus on transactional work identify the audience, without establishing a professional responsibility framework for each location.
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 product design separates deterministic formatting from AI analysis and human judgment. BoostDraft's October announcement explains that changes to formatting should not alter meaning, while content review can involve broader judgments. Confidential information is masked before AI processing, and lawyer supervised prompts provide a legal context for recommendations. The company's workflow guidance also reserves exceptions to organizational standards for human approval. These principles identify intended safeguards, but do not define a model governance program. There is no named owner for model behavior, pre release evaluation protocol or result describing uneven performance across agreement types, languages or client populations. The team's legal expertise alone does not establish those controls.
Definely holds ISO/IEC 42001:2023 certification, with Prescient Security identified as the auditor. The framework covers Enhance, Cascade and internal AI use, with a register recording each system, impact assessments, ownership and ongoing monitoring. Its stated scope includes fairness, transparency, human oversight and risk assessment across development and operation. Management reviews and internal audits support continuing governance. The description assigns ownership within the register but does not name the accountable person or role for model behavior. It also gives no measured results for differences across matter types or populations. Certification therefore establishes the management framework without exposing those evaluation outcomes.
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.
The AI service states that information from contract files is neither retained by the AI nor used for training, with automatic masking before transmission. The privacy policy separately permits service delivery and creation of anonymous or statistical information, and provides routes to request correction, deletion or suspension of personal data use. Those general rights do not define the complete AI data lifecycle. Prompt and output storage, operational logs, access administration and incident notification remain unspecified. The Japanese privacy policy names advertising providers, but those entities are not identified as processors of contract content. A complete AI subprocessor list and deletion schedule for residual service data are not available.
Definely's trust center covers access monitoring, backups, erasure, audit logging, incident reporting and vulnerability management. The terms require confidential information to be returned or destroyed on termination or written request. Its privacy appendix identifies Azure for user content and separate providers for analytics, licensing, payments and customer management, with advance notice before user content processors change. The general privacy retention rule follows service necessity and legal obligations, while organizational contact details can remain after a subscription ends. A specific prompt and output schedule and the retention practices of any underlying model provider remain unclear. The AI security whitepaper requires access approval.
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.
The English commercial notice promises a corrected version when the software has a serious defect. It also excludes convenience refunds and continues charges until the end of a subscription term after cancellation. These provisions address software delivery and payment, rather than the consequences of an incorrect AI risk assessment or proposed clause. No allocation of loss for generated legal output, AI indemnity, liability cap tied to that output or professional warranty accompanies the current service description. The Japanese commercial notice identifies the seller, payment process and delivery timing without adding those remedies. A software correction commitment therefore does not establish recovery for harm caused by reliance on a recommendation.
Definely's terms cap each party's aggregate liability at fees paid or payable during the preceding 12 months. They exclude consequential, indirect and several other categories of loss. The warranty disclaimer expressly covers the accuracy, completeness and reliability of content generated with the software, alongside the software and support themselves. These are contractual limits on recourse rather than a performance warranty for an AI recommendation. No customer indemnity for third party claims arising from generated output or insurance commitment is identified. Confidentiality breaches can support equitable remedies under a separate clause, while the general liability framework remains subject to the agreement's stated cap and exclusions.
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.
Microsoft Word is the principal working environment for BoostDraft. The editor scans the active agreement, groups potential errors and moves the user to a selected passage. Suggested corrections can be applied to the file, while the AI service inserts proposed revisions and comments into the agreement without a separate review window. Existing Word add ins can remain in use. BoostDraft Compare accepts several common office formats and can export tracked changes or PDF results. These features keep drafting and review in the lawyer's existing editor. No detailed iManage, NetDocuments or practice management synchronization process is identified, including permission inheritance or movement of matter metadata between systems.
The suite operates within Word, with Read opening definitions and references, Enhance inserting suggested language and Vault bringing precedent clauses into the active agreement. Vault connects to document management repositories, including iManage and NetDocuments; the current product page also shows SharePoint. It can insert associated definitions and update references when adding a clause. A separate MCP connector exposes Definely tools in Claude, with sign in through a Definely account and enterprise enablement by IT. Installation and architecture material is available through the trust center. Detailed permission inheritance and the administrative configuration of each repository connection remain unspecified in the openly accessible product material.
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 original editor and BoostDraft Compare can operate locally without sending contract content to a cloud service. BoostDraft AI follows a separate path, masking confidential information before passing content to AI. Its processing region, provider location and tenant architecture are unspecified, so the local editor's deployment cannot establish residency for the AI service. Platform support also differs by regional offer. The English feature page requires Windows 10 or later, Office 2016 or later and .NET Framework 4.7.2 or later, with no Mac support. The Japanese pricing FAQ allows Windows and Mac while noting that available functions differ. Neither statement defines feature parity for AI across operating systems.
Definely combines a Word add in with hosted services. Local architecture diagrams for Read, Proof and Vault are available through the trust center, which also identifies AWS infrastructure. The privacy policy names Azure as a processor hosting user content and lists possible personal data processing countries including Belarus, Lithuania, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States. Those general locations are not selectable contract data residency commitments. The product material does not identify which model runs in which region, distinguish storage from inference for every feature, or specify a tenant architecture. The available information therefore leaves the precise AI processing boundary unresolved.
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.
BoostDraft's security approach emphasizes reducing movement of contract content. The editing and comparison tools can run on the device, and the AI review service masks sensitive details before processing. Its product description also rejects retention and training use of information from files. Those are product design and data handling claims, rather than independent security attestations. No SOC 2 report, ISO security certificate, named auditor, assessment period or defined audit scope accompanies the current product, pricing and privacy material. The privacy policy identifies a contact for personal data questions, but does not provide a trust portal or a route to an independent report.
The certification disclosure is named, dated and attributed. ISO/IEC 27001:2022 was recertified in February 2026 by the British Assessment Bureau, now Amtivo, a UKAS accredited body, with the audit dated 4 February 2026 and zero major and zero minor nonconformities. SOC 2 Type 2 was recertified on 28 October 2025 under AICPA SSAE 18 standards, with Prescient Security named as auditor. ISO/IEC 42001:2023 is certified by Prescient Security, alongside Cyber Essentials and a GDPR program. A 2026 independent penetration test is summarized: it covered web applications, APIs, client side integrations and external network infrastructure, was benchmarked against the OWASP Top Ten, and found low overall risk with no critical, high or medium severity findings. The summary compares this with the prior year's results, which did include medium severity findings. A SafeBase trust center holds the SOC 2 report, penetration test report, architecture diagrams, privacy and security whitepaper and policy set behind a self serve access request rather than a sales gate.
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.
BoostDraft AI performs contract analysis, translation, summarization and chat after confidential details have been masked. Lawyer supervised prompts and customer policies shape the task, but neither identifies the underlying model. The current product description does not name a foundation model family, model version, inference provider or hosting region. A promise that file information will not train models also does not identify who operates those models. The earlier editor's local processing is a separate design and cannot establish the generative service's supply chain. No customer notification commitment explains how a change in model or provider would be communicated to firms relying on the service.
Definely describes several agents, retrieval augmented generation and clause level indexing as parts of its AI architecture. AWS appears in the trust center, and the privacy appendix identifies Azure as a host for user content. Those infrastructure names do not identify the foundation models used by Enhance or Cascade. The Claude connector is a separate integration through which Claude calls Definely's tools, rather than proof that Anthropic supplies every model inside the suite. No production model version is specified. Customer notice applies to changes in user content processors, but an equivalent promise covering every model change is not identified.
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.
BoostDraft's English offer uses a subscription per user without a minimum seat requirement. The Japanese pricing structure instead describes monthly charges per device, with an additional charge for English language functionality and no initial fee. Numeric subscription amounts are supplied through a quote or purchase process. The Japanese page includes customer support and feature sessions, but leaves trial arrangements and contract duration to individual inquiry. Neither regional page supplies a separate numeric rate for BoostDraft AI. The English commercial notice excludes refunds after purchase and continues service and fees until the contracted term ends. The charging structure is therefore visible, while the total depends on the selected regional offer and scope.
Definely sells software through individual orders and a demo led sales process. Its terms require annual payment in advance, define an initial 12 month term and provide for successive annual renewals. Orders can include software licenses, additional users and upgraded packages, with currency and fees set in the customer's account. The agreement permits limited trials or beta access at Definely's discretion without establishing a universally available free plan. No numeric rate or fixed charging unit is stated for the suite, and implementation costs are unspecified. The contractual payment structure is identifiable, while a buyer cannot calculate a subscription total from a standard rate card.
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.
BoostDraft serves law firms and corporate legal departments reviewing agreements in Word. Named users include Farella Braun + Martel's transactional lawyers and Silicon Legal Strategy, whose clients include technology startups, founders and venture investors. Corporate testimonials include Kikkoman, LY Corporation and Tokio Marine. The AI service supports Japanese, English and Korean analysis, including contract risks, template comparison, translation and suggested revisions. These uses are centered on drafting and review rather than primary law research or court case management. The material does not define limits by contract type, jurisdiction or firm size, and the company's total customer figures cover the wider editing and comparison family rather than AI users alone.
Definely targets large law firms, including Magic Circle and Am Law firms, and corporate legal departments at major enterprises. Its named settings include acquisitions, banking, insurance and complex commercial agreements. The suite focuses on an active contract and its related files, with tasks such as clause reuse, linked definition review, issues list extraction and analysis of changes across an agreement set. It is positioned for complex transactional work rather than high volume processing of routine contracts or lifecycle administration. That boundary distinguishes the product from a general legal assistant or a CLM platform, while its main working environment remains the lawyer's contract in Word.
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?
BoostDraft AI states that information from a contract file is not used to train models and is not retained on the AI side. The service also masks confidential details before processing, but no matching customer agreement clause or named model provider establishes the full contractual chain. The older editor's local operation is a separate safeguard and does not, by itself, determine the training terms governing generative review.
The software terms and general privacy policy do not state whether customer content may train models. Definely permits use of feedback without a confidentiality restriction, and its privacy policy allows service improvement and development of new products, without naming model training. An AI security whitepaper is available through a trust center access request, but its contents were not available for review and cannot establish a separate commitment.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The AI review service says file information is not retained after being passed to AI, with anonymization applied before transmission. It does not define a retention period for chat instructions, generated answers, operational logs or copies kept by the application outside the AI processor. The general privacy policy supplies correction and deletion routes for personal data, without identifying a customer setting that controls the complete prompt and output lifecycle.
Clause 9.4 of Definely's terms requires return or destruction of confidential information when the agreement ends or the other party makes a written request. The privacy policy separately retains personal information for service needs and legal obligations, including some organizational contacts after subscription termination. The contract supplies a customer instruction route, but no product setting defines a prompt and output window or an immediate zero retention configuration.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
BoostDraft works within the agreement in Word and can use a customer's templates or policy files for AI review, but no matter permission model or inherited document management access control is identified. The older editor's optional Definition Library stores terms from multiple files locally and can be disabled in settings. That local feature and AI anonymization do not establish how a firm's ethical walls constrain retrieval or reuse across matters.
Vault retrieves clauses and definitions from connected document management systems, including iManage and NetDocuments, and can insert them into a contract. Definely's trust center includes access control policies and monitoring material behind an access request. The accessible product information does not explain whether retrieval applies each user's source permissions at request time or how matter walls are enforced, so the existence of a repository connector does not resolve that boundary.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The privacy policy permits disclosure when cooperation with a national or local authority is required and obtaining consent could obstruct its legally prescribed work. It also allows disclosure under applicable law, without committing to alert the affected customer before responding to a government request. The product's promise not to retain AI file information narrows one category of data, but does not replace a notice rule for personal information the company does hold.
Clause 9.1 of Definely's software terms permits disclosure of confidential information only to the extent required by a subpoena, court order or governmental authority, after prompt notice to the other party of the intended disclosure. That contractual notice is distinct from the privacy policy's general permission to disclose personal data for legal reasons. No transparency report or volume of government requests accompanies the commitment.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
BoostDraft AI analyzes the agreement together with customer supplied templates or policy files, using lawyer supervised prompts to shape contract review. Those inputs identify the immediate source of organizational standards, while no primary law collection, foundation model training corpus or rights basis is specified. Japanese, English and Korean analysis describe language support; they do not establish a licensed legal database, a jurisdictional research collection or a schedule for updating authorities.
Vault draws precedent clauses and definitions from the customer's connected repository and clause library. Enhance uses the contract and related material to provide contextual responses, while Read links internal definitions and references. This identifies the customer supplied source collection, but does not establish a vendor supplied primary law database, a separate rights basis for foundation model training material or an update cadence for legal authorities.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
The editor checks internal references, definitions and section numbering, and BoostDraft AI identifies contract risks against organizational standards. Those functions concern consistency within an agreement rather than whether a cited court decision has been reversed or overruled. No commercial citator, independently computed treatment signal or subsequent history check is identified for the AI service, so its contract proofreading functions do not establish the continuing validity of an external legal authority.
Definely checks internal references and defined terms in transactional agreements. It can map broken or circular references and expose the relevant contract text, but these functions do not determine the subsequent history of a court decision. No licensed citator or independent treatment signal is identified for external legal authority. The suite's principal context is drafting and reviewing an agreement, with the source material coming from the contract and connected precedents.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
BoostDraft AI highlights issues, suggests revisions and supports questions inside Word, with policy files and templates providing context for review. No defined refusal response, confidence indicator or unsupported answer behavior explains what happens when that context is insufficient. The company's guidance asks lawyers to verify generated language and retain judgment over exceptions, which establishes a human review responsibility without specifying when the AI declines to produce an answer.
The Claude connector describes its structural tools as deterministic, with the same analysis producing identical results for the same input. That claim concerns reproducibility of the tools rather than a refusal rule for every generative response. Enhance and Cascade provide contract analysis and reasoning for review, but no defined abstention message or confidence indicator explains what occurs when the supplied material cannot support an answer.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No identified court order, opinion or disciplinary decision attributes fabricated legal citations to BoostDraft or BoostDraft AI. Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases database contains no match for BoostDraft or Boost Draft in either the named tool field or the wider case text as of October 15, 2026. This absence does not measure output reliability, particularly for the generative contract review service that began operating separately from the older editor in 2026.
No identified court order, opinion or disciplinary decision attributes fabricated citations to Definely or Defeyene Legal Solutions Limited. Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases database contains no match for either name in the tool field or wider case text as of October 15, 2026. The absence does not establish legal accuracy, and the product's principal use is transactional contract review rather than preparation of authorities for court filings.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
BoostDraft recognizes law firms' confidentiality duties and the sensitivity of contract material when explaining its local editor and AI anonymization design. Its drafting guidance also keeps business judgment and approval of exceptions with human reviewers. These statements address professional responsibilities in general terms, but no named bar opinion or mapping to jurisdiction specific ethics guidance connects the product's training, review or disclosure controls to a lawyer's governing requirements.
Definely provides material about contract review risks and operates an AI management framework that includes human oversight. Those controls address product governance and the reviewer's role, but do not map the suite to a named bar opinion or professional regulator's guidance. ABA Formal Opinion 512, state bar requirements and Solicitors Regulation Authority or Law Society guidance are not identified as the governing framework for the product's use.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Silicon Legal Strategy reports that BoostDraft's editing tools save approximately 10 percent of total contract review time, and Farella Braun + Martel describes reduced proofreading work for transactional lawyers. These are law firm customers working for clients, although the accounts do not isolate the newer AI service. The product does not provide a client fee adjustment method, AI work billing record or guidance on disclosing automated work in an invoice.
Definely associates its tools with faster contract review and less manual drafting work. Law firms are a principal customer group, so reduced work can affect matters performed for clients rather than only an internal department's costs. The suite's contract reports and issues lists do not form a matter billing record, and no guidance specifies how a firm should adjust fees or disclose AI assisted work to a client.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The AI product description explains anonymization and states that file information is not retained or used for training, while the general privacy policy describes personal data rights. No client disclosure pack, outside counsel approval workflow or complete list of AI subprocessors accompanies those statements. Google, Meta and Microsoft appear in the Japanese policy as advertising providers, which does not identify them as processors of confidential contract material in the AI service.
Definely's privacy appendix names Azure for user content, with advance notice before those processors change. It separately identifies analytics, payments, licensing and customer management providers. The trust center offers a data processing agreement, security reports, architecture material and AI security documentation through an access request. This gives a firm named processing information and a route to diligence material, without a dedicated client consent or notification pack.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
BoostDraft supports drafting and reviewing contracts, with proposed edits and comments applied inside Word and comparison results exportable as tracked changes or PDF. Those artifacts show textual revisions, but do not identify the model, prompts, generated contribution or lawyer verification required for a court disclosure record. No standing order template, certification workflow or dedicated export of AI use is identified for the generative review service, whose main setting is transactional work.
The Claude connector can return contract review results in HTML, DOCX and table formats, including issues and reference reports. Audit logging also appears in Definely's trust center. These artifacts support retention of findings, but no combined record identifies the model, retrieved sources and human verification for a particular court filing. The workflow remains centered on transactional agreements rather than certification under a judicial AI disclosure order.
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.
- Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Which one fits
Choose BoostDraft if
- Review relies on company templates or policies, with AI translation across Japanese, English and Korean.
- The team needs local editing and a separate comparison tool for Word, PDF, Excel and PowerPoint.
- Automatic masking of confidential details is part of the desired AI review workflow.
Choose Definely if
- Changes need to be traced through affected definitions, provisions and related agreements.
- Precedent clauses should come from a connected iManage or NetDocuments repository.
- Contract review tools and exportable findings are also needed inside Claude.
In summary
BoostDraft
BoostDraft combines local editing tools with a separate AI review service introduced in 2026. Across that product family, AI Legal Index identifies a division between rule based formatting and generative contract analysis. The editor handles definitions, references and numbering, while BoostDraft AI uses organizational templates and policies for risk review, proposed revisions and chat inside Word. Confidential details are masked before AI processing. Japanese, English and Korean analysis are supported. BoostDraft Compare separately handles Word, PDF, Excel and PowerPoint files, including scanned material through OCR. The offline behavior of the editing tools does not establish where the AI service processes content.
Definely
Definely centers its suite on complex contracts and their relationships. For agreements with interdependent clauses, AI Legal Index highlights Cascade's analysis of how a change affects definitions, provisions and references. Enhance provides natural language analysis with responses connected to contract text, while Read exposes internal definitions and Proof checks drafting errors. Vault adds precedent reuse from connected repositories such as iManage and NetDocuments, including associated definitions and updated references when a clause is inserted. The suite works inside Word and also offers a Claude connector for review tools and exportable findings. Its emphasis is contextual work on complex agreements and related contract sets.
Questions buyers ask
Does BoostDraft's offline editor make its AI review offline?
No. The original editor and BoostDraft Compare can operate locally. BoostDraft AI follows a separate process that masks sensitive information before passing it to AI. The current AI description does not identify the processing region or provider, so the editor's offline design should not be applied to the AI service. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How does Definely Cascade differ from a contract risk checklist?
Cascade analyzes the effects of a change on other clauses, definitions and references and exposes its reasoning. BoostDraft AI reviews an agreement against a party's position and organizational standards, including templates and policies. The first follows dependencies created by an edit; the second focuses on risks and departures from the selected standards. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Can both products bring existing contract language into the review?
BoostDraft AI can use supplied templates and policy files when reviewing an agreement. Definely Vault connects to a repository and retrieves precedent clauses by meaning, then inserts the selected language with relevant definitions and updated references. These are different routes for applying a team's existing contract knowledge. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How are BoostDraft and Definely subscriptions sold?
BoostDraft's English offer uses a subscription per user, while its Japanese pricing describes monthly charges per device and additional English language options. Definely sets fees through individual orders and requires annual payment in advance. A standard numeric subscription rate is not supplied by either set of materials used for this comparison. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything on it comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.
This page compares two products in the contract review and drafting category using their current product descriptions and commercial terms. The assessment distinguishes workflow features without a hands on accuracy test. Neither vendor reviewed this page.