Clment vs Ivo: how they compare in 2026
Clment makes the selected negotiation strategy and the customer's rulebook the center of an individual review. Its browser workflow shows findings beside the source and keeps reviewers responsible for decisions and wording. Ivo connects review more closely to a broader contracting operation, including intake, approved templates, repository context and routing toward signature. Its ability to apply three playbooks also suits a review that must reconcile several sets of instructions. Clment's Word and Google Docs connections move an editable copy back into its workspace; Ivo offers review within those editors. The commercial structures differ as well: Clment has a free plan and paid allowances with metered AI activity, while Ivo subscriptions depend on the customer's agreement. Clment organizes a review around the selected strategy and rulebook; Ivo also connects approved contract creation, negotiation and repository work.
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 powers contract classification, clause review, redlines, extracted dates and answers about agreements. A rulebook supplies the team's positions, while the chosen review strategy controls which findings enter a proposed markup. Single agreement questions use the full text, and portfolio questions retrieve relevant material from stored contracts. The application also retains a contract repository, versions, reviewer comments, key dates and calendar reminders. Those records and collaboration functions remain useful independently of a new model response. Clment is separate from Contract Eagle's older lifecycle platform; the AI review product combines its own ongoing contract workspace with the model driven analysis.
Ivo applies models to contract review, portfolio analysis and the contracting workflow. Ivo Intelligence connects to contracts where they already live and adds extraction, plain English questions, amendment timelines and flags on departures from standard positions. Ivo Review assigns a separate agent to each topic, with a supervising agent that reconciles overlapping findings into one recommendation per topic, and applies playbook backed redlines in Word or Google Docs. Review also benchmarks clauses against the customer's executed contracts, narrowed by contract type, governing law, party role and industry, and Playbook Builder derives positions from those agreements. Ivo Assistant compares documents, researches regulation and reports on changes in the law. Each of these steps is model work over the customer's own contracts.
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.
Findings quote the clause behind the recommendation, and answers link to the source contract and page. Single document analysis uses a 200,000 token context window, while questions across the portfolio use retrieval augmented generation. Review rules and supporting attachments give the model additional context. When a point appears to require external authority that cannot be grounded in the supplied contract or rulebook, the finding is marked for human verification. Classification carries confidence estimates, but those estimates do not measure citation correctness. No test set, reproducible accuracy result or error rate accompanies the current review system, and the terms warn that output may omit material issues.
The contract review comparison set Ivo, Claude for Word running Opus 4.6 and a practicing Special Counsel at an Am Law 25 firm against the same 19 real, anonymized contracts. They spanned NDAs, MSAs, DPAs and other commercial types. Three attorneys with recent Am Law 100 or in house technology experience rated each output blind from 1 to 10 on issue spotting, surgical redlining, formatting retention, judgment and comments. The attorney averaged 4.56, Ivo 4.52 and Claude for Word 3.50, and the redlines and playbooks are downloadable. A contract took Ivo 2 minutes 45 seconds on average, against about 32 minutes for the attorney. The study names formatting retention as Ivo's weak area, and Ivo ran the study itself. Separately, Intelligence reports 97% accuracy against the Contract Understanding Atticus Dataset of 30,000 expert annotations, and Assistant returns cited answers from more than 100 legal sources.
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.
Three review strategies set the default content of a redline. Understand and Negotiate includes findings of medium severity and above; High priority only includes high severity findings; Strict includes every deviation. A reviewer's explicit choice, custom wording or agreement with a finding takes precedence over that default. Reviewers can exclude a change, record their reasoning and generate a Word file with attributed tracked changes. Unsupported external points return for human verification. Proposed rulebook refinements also require approval and retain versions. API keys can automate reviews and content changes, but cannot alter membership, billing, security settings or integrations; those actions require a signed in administrator.
Redlines appear in Word or Google Docs for a reviewer to accept or reject. Playbook Builder cites the agreements behind its proposed positions and allows review before saving. Collaborate selects a workflow when an agreement arrives, progresses low risk agreements to signature and routes matters requiring judgment to a reviewer. The customer supplies the workflow steps, playbook and policy in plain English. The terms require use under a lawyer's direct supervision. Precise criteria for classifying a contract as low risk and the response to an incorrect automatic approval are not specified.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
The current application offers a free plan, paid subscriptions and step by step review workflows, but no named production customer or measured deployment result accompanies the Clment review product. Acme and Northwind agreements illustrate classification, liability findings, proposed changes and version comparison in the product demonstration. Those examples do not identify a customer's actual contract work. Contract Eagle's longstanding lifecycle product has separate customer stories, including ManpowerGroup, but those stories concern that older system. A study of review time, missed clauses or negotiated outcomes for the current Clment release is not available.
Atlassian, Canva and CDW are featured with case studies, and Suhayb Ahmed, head of commercial legal at Canva, and Carla Michel, director and senior counsel at CDW, are quoted on the home page. Quora's legal operations lead, Adrie Christensen, says the first pass of redlines back to a counterparty fell from about 11 hours to 5 minutes. An assistant general counsel at Kandji says Ivo saved hundreds of hours in a year. None of these figures carries a date or a stated method. The benchmarking study compares output quality rather than production use: the attorney took 10 hours for the redlining tasks, while Ivo averaged 2 minutes and 45 seconds a contract.
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.
The subscriber agreement prohibits Contract Eagle and its subprocessors from training machine learning models on customer data. It also treats customer data as confidential and limits staff access to people who need it for their duties. Each organization has an isolated workspace, with authentication and roles enforced by Clment. AI providers can retain input and output for up to 30 days, with longer retention or controlled staff review for flagged misuse and legal requirements. Confidential information can be returned or destroyed on instruction, subject to legal retention. The agreement does not specifically address attorney client privilege or work product, and tenant isolation does not describe matter level walls.
Ivo's policy prohibits training AI models on customer data, while its general terms grant use of customer content to provide the service without a matching express training prohibition. Intelligence offers separate rooms for projects, acquisitions and business units, and customers assign roles and permissions. The terms provide deletion of customer content on request within 60 days after termination, with ordinary backup and record retention exceptions. Their No Legal Advice clause waives claims of malpractice, privilege and an attorney client relationship in relation to Ivo. Model provider retention and the detailed enforcement of room boundaries are not specified.
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.
Clment reviews agreements supplied by the user and does not draft original contracts or provide an attorney's approval. Its terms describe informational software, disclaim legal advice and require independent checking and advice from a legal practitioner before relying on output. Reviewers control findings and wording, with an executive summary available for colleagues who are not lawyers. The product supports English language contracts and adapts rulebooks to governing law rather than treating every agreement as subject to one country's norms. Named professional competence duties, supervisory procedures for law firms and a complete jurisdictional support boundary are not specified.
The terms carry a No Legal Advice clause. It says the service is no substitute for professional legal advice and that its legal information is general. Ivo does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of legal materials, and no attorney client or special relationship forms, including during implementation or training. The same clause has the customer warrant that use runs under the direct supervision of a lawyer representing it, which carries the supervision duty into the contract. No jurisdiction limit is stated, and no bar or ethics opinion is cited.
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.
Review behavior is constrained by rulebooks, source grounding and a prohibition on treating unsupported external authority as established fact. The model should not strengthen a position merely because a user asks for a more combative response, and reviewers approve changes to the rulebook. These are controls on a particular contract review, separate from governance of the models themselves. An accountable AI governance owner, a release testing program and findings about uneven performance across contract types or groups are not specified. The named founder and data protection contact do not have a stated responsibility for evaluating model bias or approving AI releases.
Ivo's benchmark compares contract redlines through a blind review method. Three attorneys with recent Am Law 100 or in house experience judged redlines from Ivo, Claude for Word and a practicing Special Counsel across 19 real, anonymized contracts. Every output was stripped of identifying information and rated blind on five criteria, issue spotting, surgical redlining, formatting retention, comments and judgment. Ratings run from 1 to 10 as the mean of the three judges: 4.56 for the attorney, 4.52 for Ivo and 3.50 for Claude for Word. The study page sets out the playbook positions the redlines were judged against and offers the full report for download. No responsible AI policy, framework or accountable owner sits beside it, and SOC 2 and ISO 27001 cover information security.
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 data processing agreement names the hosting, AI, conversion, security, backup and payment providers, with at least 30 days notice for new subprocessors and an objection process. Access is limited by organization and role, with confidentiality obligations for staff and optional enforced multifactor authentication on paid plans. Encrypted backups remain for 90 days. Customers have 90 days after termination to export their data, followed by deletion, subject to legal and technical exceptions. AI processing has a separate limit of up to 30 days with misuse and legal exceptions. Breach notices must arrive without undue delay, with assistance for the customer's reporting obligations and remediation of the cause.
The privacy policy keeps a contract or document tied to a thumbs down rating for 14 days before deleting or deidentifying it. Other personal information is kept as long as Ivo has a business or operational purpose, and on request after termination customer content is deleted within 60 days. Access control appears as the customer assigning roles and permissions to its authorized users. The subprocessor list and security documents sit in a Vanta trust center. No incident or breach notification practice is stated.
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.
Paid subscribers receive an intellectual property indemnity for permitted use of the service, with exclusions including customer data, third party data, modifications and combinations. The general liability cap is the prior year's fees; Free has a cap of NZ$100. The IP indemnity, confidentiality breaches, fraud, willful misconduct, personal injury and required refunds sit outside that cap. A software conformity warranty carries commercially reasonable efforts to fix defects. AI accuracy and suitability are expressly unwarranted, and users must check the result. Certain Azure related confidentiality losses are excluded, subject to the data agreement. No insurance commitment or specific remedy for an erroneous contract recommendation is stated.
The terms of 20 November 2024 cap Ivo's total liability at $100, and more than one claim does not raise the limit. Indirect, consequential and punitive damages are excluded, and clause 8 disclaims all warranties, accuracy and fitness included. The customer indemnifies Ivo, and no indemnity runs the other way. The customer also releases Ivo from every past, present and future claim relating to the service and waives section 1542 of the California Civil Code for unknown claims. Clause 14 adds a waiver of malpractice and privilege claims. Ivo's trust center lists a certificate of insurance among the documents it releases on request, and enterprise customers sign a separate Services Agreement that is not publicly available.
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.
Each user connects a Microsoft or Google account to edit a contract or redline in Word Online or Google Docs. Clment places a copy in the connected drive, tracks the session and imports the edited file as a new Word version. Users can delete the drive copy and make the revision active during check in; only the session owner or an invited participant can finish that step. One editor can hold a version at a time. API keys provide regional access to contract work, signed webhooks report events, and MCP connects other assistants. Calendar feeds expose contract dates without permitting changes through the calendar.
Review and Assistant run as add ins inside Microsoft Word and Google Docs, and review works on Word, PDF and Google Docs files. Intelligence connects to contracts wherever they are stored. Collaborate takes intake in Salesforce, redlines in Word and approvals in Slack, and syncs each teammate's changes back to the same deal with version history. Connections also reach existing file systems, cloud storage, common CRMs and e signature vendors. Slack, Google Docs and Teams are among the services a customer may connect, through which Ivo may receive messages and attachments. Named document management systems, a developer reference and what syncs in each direction are not described.
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.
Clment runs on Azure with separate regional workspaces in the United States, Frankfurt, London, Sydney, Auckland and Toronto. European Union storage is in Frankfurt, with AI inference in Sweden Central. For other regions, AI processing may occur outside the selected storage region; the complete processing locations are not specified. Backups stay within the chosen jurisdiction. New Zealand uses local Azure redundancy and a separate local backup provider because Azure has no second region there. If that region becomes permanently unavailable, the terms offer recoverable data or redeployment to Australia at Contract Eagle's expense.
Delivery is in the cloud, with no region, residency option, tenancy model or hosting provider stated. The privacy policy says the business operates from the United States, Canada and other jurisdictions. Personal information may be transferred to and stored in the United States and other places whose laws differ, and transfers out of Europe rely on standard contractual clauses.
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.
SOC 2 Type II covers security, availability and confidentiality, with the report available on request under a confidentiality undertaking. The service terms also commit to regular independent security testing, AES 256 encryption at rest, transport encryption, tenant isolation and limited staff access. Administrators can require Microsoft or Google sign in, disable passwords or enforce multifactor authentication for password users on paid plans. Contract activity records identify the user, action, resource and time. The auditor, examination period and report date are not accessible alongside the attestation claim. Enterprise subscribers may negotiate audit rights beyond the standard report access.
SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 certification are stated, with GDPR and CCPA compliance. A Vanta trust center handles requests for the certifications and supplies subprocessor and audit material. No auditor, coverage period or scope appears on the open site. Access to the underlying reports depends on approval through that portal.
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.
Claude language models run through Azure AI Foundry, while GPT language and embedding models run through Azure OpenAI Service. Microsoft supplies the inference infrastructure rather than the model companies' own hosting. Anthropic and OpenAI remain named in the subprocessor schedule, alongside Adobe and Aspose for optical character recognition and conversion. The agreement does not promise a particular model, provider or version and allows substitution without notice. New subprocessors generally require 30 days notice, but that is a separate obligation from changing a model within the existing supply chain. Exact current model versions and the routing between them are not specified.
The engine is described as proprietary, and no model or provider is named for live use. The privacy policy lists artificial intelligence among the services that vendors help with, and the benchmark tested Claude for Word as a comparison rather than as a component. Where inference runs is not stated, and the subprocessor list sits in the trust center rather than on the site.
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.
Pro includes five users, 250 contracts, ten rulebooks and 10,000 monthly AI units for $149 monthly or $1,490 annually. Business increases these allowances to 20 users, 1,000 contracts, unlimited rulebooks and 25,000 monthly units for $329 monthly or $3,290 annually. Enterprise is quoted separately. Uploads use one unit per page, questions ten, and a standard review 250 plus five per page. Extra packs start at $19 for 1,000 units and expire after 12 months. The free plan has one user, 25 contracts and an initial allowance. Migration, data entry and template configuration are outside routine subscription support.
Every route in is a demo request, and no price is listed. The terms set the shape. Fees are fixed in a Services Agreement for an initial term with renewal terms, priced and invoiced in United States dollars, and nonrefundable apart from prorated refunds on certain terminations. Ivo can change fees or add charges at the end of a term with 30 days notice, and the privacy policy describes the business as subscriptions. Implementation takes about a week.
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.
The product serves legal teams, operations staff and people reviewing their own commercial agreements. It handles incoming English language contracts, including software agreements and commercial leases, with classification across 16 categories and more than 60 types. Reviews work from the agreement's governing law and the user's chosen rulebook. It does not create original agreements, provide an attorney's sign off or support non English contract estates. Teams needing large enterprise procurement connections, matter management or bespoke lifecycle workflows are directed to other products. Precise law firm size segments, government uses and a complete list of supported legal jurisdictions are not specified.
The buyer is the in house legal department at large enterprises, and the named customers run across technology, semiconductors, payments, food service, industrials and retail distribution. Coverage is described by document type: the benchmark covers NDAs, MSAs, DPAs and other commercial agreements, and Review handles any document in Word, PDF or Google Docs. Research covers United States sources such as EDGAR, the United States Code, Congress.gov, eCFR and the Federal Register, and UK and EU material from Companies House, Parliament and the Court of Justice. No company size floor, excluded contract type or unsupported jurisdiction is stated, and law firms are not addressed.
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?
The service agreement prohibits training any machine learning model on customer data and extends that prohibition to subprocessors. The data agreement repeats the ban for personal data. Contract Eagle may create anonymized aggregate analytics for internal product development, but the express model training restriction still applies. Reviewer decisions can improve a customer's versioned rulebook after approval; that feature changes instructions rather than granting permission to train a model.
Customer data never trains AI models, according to the home page. The terms carry no matching clause; they let Ivo use customer content to provide the service and use feedback freely. The privacy policy lets Ivo improve its services by analyzing feature use and submitted documentation, and use deidentified or aggregated information for any purpose. Intelligence uses customer agreements to build playbooks and answer repository questions.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Customers can instruct return or destruction of confidential information, with written confirmation of destruction within 30 days, subject to legal retention. A terminated account has a 90 day export period, and encrypted backups remain for 90 days. Separately, AI providers may retain inputs and outputs for up to 30 days, or longer for flagged misuse or legal duties. No customer setting eliminates all of these retention paths.
Information is kept as long as Ivo has a business or operational purpose, with no period and no customer setting. A contract or document tied to a thumbs down rating is kept for 14 days, then deleted or deidentified unless the law requires otherwise. On request after termination, customer content is deleted within 60 days, subject to ordinary backup and record retention exceptions in the terms.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Clment enforces its own organization boundaries on each read and write, with invitation based membership and administrative control over sign in methods. API keys operate in the organization's home region and can access workspace content but cannot change roles or security settings. Each person's drive editing connection is separate. A document management system's matter permissions are not inherited at retrieval time, and internal ethical wall arrangements are not specified.
Intelligence offers separate rooms for projects, acquisitions and business units to control access and the scope of analysis. Customers also assign user roles and permissions. The rooms provide a way to separate contract collections inside the service, but the permission inheritance, administrator setup and enforcement at retrieval time are not described. No automatic inheritance of a source document system's ethical walls is specified.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The confidentiality clause requires notice as early as reasonably possible before legally required disclosure, together with reasonable action to avoid or limit the disclosure. A further provision requires prompt written notice where law permits it. The data agreement also requires notice before processing personal data to satisfy a legal requirement when permitted. A public transparency report describing received demands is not available.
The Legal Process clause of the terms lets Ivo respond to subpoenas, warrants, liens and other legal orders about an account, without responsibility for the customer's resulting losses. Where permitted, Ivo gives reasonable notice that it received the order. No transparency report is offered.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Answers use uploaded contracts, supporting material and the chosen rulebook. Single agreement questions use a full context window, while portfolio questions retrieve relevant passages from stored files. Rules may come from the customer, an AI drafting wizard or Clment's supplied rulebook. The customer retains ownership of its data and grants a service processing license. An external primary law collection, its rights basis and its refresh schedule are not identified.
Assistant answers from more than 100 legal sources. For the United States these include EDGAR and SEC filings, the United States Code, Congress.gov, eCFR and the Federal Register, and UK and EU questions draw on Companies House, Parliament and the Court of Justice. No license basis or update schedule is given. Most of the product's material is the customer's own executed contracts and playbooks, with Playbook Builder citing each position back to its source agreement.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Clment cites agreement passages and rulebook positions while reviewing contractual obligations. Its review method flags external authorities that cannot be grounded in the supplied material for human verification. That control does not check whether a case has been overruled or a statute amended. No licensed citator or subsequent history mechanism is specified for authorities that appear in contract material or reviewer instructions.
Assistant and Review retrieve case law and statutes with citations, described as verified, and Assistant reports on changes in the law. Whether a cited authority has later history or has been superseded is not flagged.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
If a finding appears to depend on an external statute, case, regulation or standard that the supplied agreement or rulebook cannot support, Clment marks it as needing verification instead of asserting the authority as fact. This behavior applies across review strategies. Classification also exposes confidence estimates, but those are separate from the unsupported authority warning. No public evaluation demonstrates how consistently the warning catches unsupported assertions.
Review gives one recommendation per topic with the reasoning and source behind it, and a user can rate an answer down after the fact. No behavior is described for a question the product cannot answer from its sources, and no confidence measure is shown.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
The AI Hallucination Cases database contains no court or disciplinary record about fabricated legal citations attributed to Clment or Contract Eagle as of October 15, 2026. Clment primarily reviews supplied agreements and attaches contract passages to its findings. The database result does not measure the accuracy of those findings, the appropriateness of a suggested redline or the validity of legal authority supplied in a rulebook.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming Ivo or Ivo AI, Inc. Its products review and manage contracts for in house legal teams.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
The terms require independent checking and advice from a legal practitioner before relying on contract output. The product also keeps reviewer decisions and makes users responsible for the agreement they accept or amend. These provisions address use of the tool without mapping its controls to a named bar opinion or professional ethics rule. No jurisdiction specific ethics guidance for lawyers is identified.
The terms require use under the direct supervision of a lawyer representing the customer. Their No Legal Advice clause says the service provides general legal information, forms no attorney client relationship and cannot replace professional advice. Ivo does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of legal material. A named bar opinion or jurisdiction specific ethics guidance does not accompany that contractual supervision requirement.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Clment's current packaging addresses organizations reviewing their own commercial agreements, including legal and operations teams and individuals handling business contracts. The terms limit use to internal business or personal purposes. Review automation and reusable rulebooks reduce that internal work. The product does not describe a law firm time billing workflow, client fee adjustments or disclosure of AI savings on an invoice to a legal client.
Ivo is sold to in house legal teams at large enterprises, with Atlassian, Canva and CDW as its featured customers. Its time claims are aimed at those teams. The home page promises review, redlines and insights from contracts in minutes. In Ivo's benchmarking study the attorney took 10 hours for the redlining tasks, while Ivo averaged 2 minutes and 45 seconds a contract.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The data agreement names Microsoft Azure, Anthropic, OpenAI, Cloudflare, Aspose, Adobe, Catalyst Cloud and Airwallex, with their functions and regional scope. Claude and GPT inference currently runs on Azure infrastructure. Customers receive advance notice of new subprocessors, with emergency exceptions and an objection route. The service agreement and data agreement are available before signup, but a client facing AI consent or outside counsel disclosure pack is not specified.
The subprocessor list and security documents sit in a Vanta trust center where copies of the SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 certifications are requested. The privacy policy confirms that AI providers are among Ivo's service providers without naming them, and no client facing disclosure material is offered. Requests pass through the portal's access process before the reports are supplied.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Contract activity records the user, action, resource and timestamp. Review findings retain decisions, comments and source passages, and generated Word changes carry attribution and a review reference. Support can supply an organization wide activity export for a requested period. These records preserve parts of the work, but no document level export combines the exact model version, retrieved sources and human verification into a court disclosure record.
Playbook Builder cites each drafted position back to the agreement it came from, Review gives the source behind each recommendation, and redlines land as tracked changes a person accepts. The model behind a passage is not recorded, and no export for a court filing is offered.
The questions both sides leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favor either vendor. Take these into both conversations and ask each side the same question.
- Good Law Verification
- Bar Guidance Alignment
Which one fits
Choose Clment if
- Reviewers want a browser workspace with selectable negotiation strategies.
- A small team needs a free starting plan and visible usage allowances.
- Approved rulebook changes should remain separate from individual wording decisions.
Choose Ivo if
- Reviewers need to apply several playbooks within Word or Google Docs.
- Contract work should connect intake, approved templates and signature routing.
- Previous agreements and amendments should inform review and repository analysis.
In summary
Clment
Clment reviews agreements in a browser using an organization's rulebooks and a chosen negotiation strategy. Reviewers can ask for broad explanations, focus on high priority issues or apply a strict position across every issue. The AI Legal Index identifies explicit reviewer decisions and editable wording as central controls in that process. Source quotations and page references connect findings to the agreement, and approved rulebook revisions preserve the team's chosen positions. Microsoft Word and Google Docs connections support editing a copy and returning a new version to the workspace. Free and paid subscriptions set allowances for users, stored contracts, rulebooks and AI units, with additional usage available separately.
Ivo
Ivo combines contract review with a wider repository and contracting workflow. Review in Word and Google Docs can apply up to three playbooks at once and use governing law or comparable agreements as context. The AI Legal Index highlights that combination of negotiation guidance and previous deal terms. Ivo Collaborate creates agreements from approved templates, routes work by agreement type and sends low risk contracts toward signature while directing judgment calls to reviewers. Intelligence organizes agreements and amendments, extracts information and allows custom rooms for projects or business units. Repository information can also reach other assistants through MCP connections, extending the workflow beyond the review editor.
Questions buyers ask
How do the products guide a review?
Clment combines a rulebook with one of three review strategies and lets the reviewer decide each issue. Ivo can apply up to three playbooks and include governing law or comparable contracts as context. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Do both work with Microsoft Word?
Yes, through different workflows. Clment opens an editing copy through OneDrive and brings the revised file back as a version. Ivo provides contract review inside Word and also supports Google Docs. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Can either product use existing agreements?
Both can hold and analyze agreements. Ivo additionally describes contract relationships, amendments and project rooms within Intelligence. Clment links review findings to the agreement under review and uses its customer's approved rulebooks. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What happens to low risk contracts?
Ivo Collaborate can route low risk agreements toward signature through a configured workflow. Clment's review strategies change which issues receive attention, with reviewer decisions and approved wording remaining part of the review process. 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.
Both products support contract review and drafting. The comparison uses current product functions, help material and contract terms without a hands on test. Neither vendor reviewed it. Clment is a product of Contract Eagle Limited.