Conga CLM vs eBrevia: how they compare in 2026
Conga CLM and eBrevia both connect contract content with business work, but they approach the agreement from different starting points. Conga organizes creation, negotiation, approval, and obligations as a contract lifecycle, with links to the company's broader revenue tools. Its AI features assist with contract questions, drafting, and review within that operating process. eBrevia began with analysis of existing agreements and now combines Contract Analyzer, Lens, DraftPro, and Command. It can extract a diligence set, answer additional questions, reuse prior clauses in Word, and manage the work attached to contracts. Conga is relevant where the main requirement is a connected commercial contracting process, including revenue context. eBrevia offers a different emphasis when review of accumulated agreements, structured extraction, and reusable legal language drive the purchase, with contract administration added around those capabilities.
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.
AiMe is a shared AI layer across the commercial suite. It connects workflow data across CPQ, CLM, price optimization and document automation and suggests next steps, rather than being the CLM itself. Underneath sits a full contract lifecycle platform that long predates it, with template and clause library generation, approval routing, negotiation, electronic signature through Conga Sign, a searchable repository, obligation and renewal tracking, and reporting. The models drive core features on top of that platform. Without AiMe a working CLM remains, as the edition built on Salesforce was for years. Recent releases push AI further in. The June 2026 release extends AI across the platform, including bulk import and extraction for incoming contracts. The March 2026 AiMe release adds agents that act inside quoting and contracting workflows. Conga still sells and prices the platform as a contract system with intelligence on top.
AI drives eBrevia's extraction, contract questions, and suggested revisions. Contract Analyzer applies more than 700 prepared fields and supports optional custom extraction, while Lens answers questions without requiring a new model for each request. DraftPro applies playbooks and draws clauses from previous agreements to assist Word editing. Those capabilities sit alongside a conventional operating layer in Command: a repository, contract requests, assignees, priorities, due dates, and status changes. Removing AI would remove the intelligence and drafting functions, but the surrounding storage and contract work system would still have functions. The suite therefore combines an AI engine with ongoing agreement administration.
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.
The AI pipeline divides document processing among specialized providers. Google Cloud Vision handles optical character recognition, Amazon Textract table detection, Zuva provision extraction and Azure OpenAI language processing. Output is grounded in the customer's own repository, playbook and clause library, and extraction needs no model training by the customer. AiMe shows how every recommendation is generated, with the reasoning visible and confidence scores wherever it makes a suggestion. The Artificial Intelligence Addendum addresses accuracy only through a disclaimer. It states that outputs may be inaccurate, incomplete or misleading and disclaims any warranty of accuracy or completeness. No accuracy figure, test set, error rate or benchmark result is available. Third party models undergo benchmarking before release, without disclosed results. The product cites no legal authority, so grounding in authority and citator checks do not apply.
Contract Analyzer presents extracted information beside the agreement and lets a reviewer jump from a result to the exact source text. Lens uses the same contract material for contextual answers, and DraftPro draws reusable clauses from agreements already in the repository. Users can validate, annotate, or correct results before exporting them. This gives contract findings a traceable basis, rather than treating generated language as an unsupported conclusion. Published review speed and accuracy claims are not accompanied by a reproducible evaluation dataset or a detailed failure analysis. The source links concern agreements, not a verified collection of judicial authority.
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.
Conga states that AiMe never acts autonomously on high stakes decisions. Three mechanisms constrain it, agent guardrails, approval thresholds and human in the loop confirmation, and each can be built into a workflow. AiMe shows how every recommendation is generated and the reasoning behind AI driven actions. Confidence scores appear wherever it makes a suggestion, users accept or reject redlines, and every action and approval is kept in an audit trail. Much of the oversight model is written into the contract. The Artificial Intelligence Addendum makes the customer solely responsible for evaluating and validating outputs. It says the customer must not rely on AI outputs as the sole basis for any decision with legal, financial, regulatory or other material impact. It also requires human review and independent judgment, and puts authorizing and supervising agent actions on the customer. The guardrails and thresholds are described as configurable rather than as defaults, and the same document states that Conga does not monitor or review AI generated outputs.
DraftPro proposes redlines after applying the legal team's playbook, but the lawyer chooses which revisions enter the Word file. The review explains whether a provision passes or fails the chosen standard and allows navigation to the relevant clause. Contract Analyzer separately supports reviewer assignments, progress states, annotations, and quality assurance workflows. Command tracks ownership and activity as an agreement moves through drafting, review, negotiation, and signature. These are practical review surfaces and responsibilities. The product does not describe a confidence based stopping rule, an automatic route for every uncertain answer, or a recovery procedure after an incorrect result has been accepted.
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.
Cotality, formerly CoreLogic, describes improving client service with Conga CLM in a September 2024 customer story without a quantified outcome. Two other dated stories, DigiKey on price management and Kalixia at 160 times faster document generation, concern other Conga products. Other named customers include Southwest Airlines, LinkedIn, AXA, Peloton, Cotality, T-Mobile, Adobe, Box and Kraft Heinz. The headline improvement figures are separate from those named customers. A 9 percent revenue increase appears beside the logo strip with no stated basis, and Conga claims 50 percent less review time with AI. Conga also cites G2 Leader recognition across five grids.
Named users describe concrete work with eBrevia. McDermott, Will & Emery attributes its ability to meet difficult review deadlines to the product. MUFG describes using custom trainable AI across different review needs, while Morris, Manning & Martin connects it with reducing data handling so lawyers can focus on analysis. Baker McKenzie discusses international deals, and Best World Group describes visibility across regional contracts. The product also advertises review time reductions of 30 to 90 percent. These accounts establish deployed legal and business uses, but the cited figures are not tied to a dated study with a reproducible measurement method.
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.
Under the Artificial Intelligence Addendum, Conga will not use AI Inputs or AI Outputs to train or improve any model beyond a limited license to provide, maintain or improve the Services for that customer. Customer Data will not train global or foundational models serving multiple customers, and no third party may use Customer Data or AI Output to train, fine tune, validate, test or develop any model. Tenants are logically separated with dedicated encryption keys. The Data Processing Addendum limits retention to the time absolutely necessary and requires return and deletion at the customer's election after the agreement ends. Prompts, completions, embeddings and training data sent to Azure OpenAI are not available to OpenAI and are not used to improve OpenAI, Microsoft or third party products. Each document processing provider works under a zero retention arrangement. Conga sells the product to legal departments to hold their agreements, and its addenda, trust center and product pages do not address attorney client privilege or work product. Separate contractual conditions sit in Conga's Master Services Agreement.
The service agreement treats uploaded Licensee Data as confidential and restricts disclosure to authorized recipients who need the information and carry matching confidentiality duties. It permits injunctive relief for a breach and requires steps to recover improperly disclosed material. Live customer data is deleted at termination or written request, with encrypted backups and legal retention exceptions. Public marketing promises no training on client data, while the incorporated Privacy Notice permits service personal data to support product improvement. The contract does not expressly exclude model training from that permission. Attorney client privilege, matter barriers, and downstream model provider retention receive no specific public treatment.
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.
Conga's position on advice versus tooling sits in the Artificial Intelligence Addendum. The Addendum states that AI generated outputs may be inaccurate, incomplete or misleading, disclaims any warranty of fitness, and makes the customer solely responsible for validating outputs before use. It says the customer must not rely on AI outputs as the sole basis for any decision with legal, financial, regulatory or other material impact, and that human review and independent judgment should be exercised. It applies the same rule to agents, making the customer responsible for deciding whether agent actions are appropriate and for authorizing and supervising them. Legal, sales and procurement teams use the application as a contracting tool. The service does not specify how a supervising lawyer meets competence or oversight duties over AI drafted contract language. Capability restrictions by buyer group and jurisdictional limits are not specified. The product is marketed to sales and procurement users who generate contract positions in the same tenant as legal.
eBrevia's service agreement defines its role as a tool for reviewing, summarizing, and managing legal material, expressly excluding replacement of legal advice. The customer remains responsible for decisions based on generated information. Authorized users include employees, attorneys, paralegals, and professional staff performing legal or related services. A licensee may share analysis with its clients, but direct client access requires a separate license. DraftPro reinforces lawyer control over proposed changes. These boundaries identify the product's professional role without setting out jurisdiction specific eligibility rules or a detailed account of how a firm should satisfy competence, supervision, and client consent duties.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
Conga's AI governance framework sits in the Artificial Intelligence Addendum rather than on a principles page. The Addendum records a cross functional AI Governance Committee responsible for oversight of AI within the Services. The committee focuses on risk management, accountability and compliance, and periodically reviews AI risks, controls and mitigations. Conga commits to internal policies on responsible AI covering oversight of training data, bias mitigation and human interpretability, to staff training, and to full cooperation with a customer's own AI impact assessments. Governance is tied to the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and its four functions, Govern, Map, Measure and Manage. The vendor classifies its products as minimal or limited risk AI systems under the EU AI Act. It states that third party models are tested, audited for bias and benchmarked before release, with rollback to any prior model version within hours. Results from that testing, bias audit findings, evaluation outputs and model cards are not available, including performance differences across contract types.
eBrevia offers Legal Advisory services covering AI use case selection, secure architecture, governance mapping, pilot evaluation, and adoption. Those services describe work for a customer's rollout, rather than a published policy governing eBrevia's own model development. Its leadership materials identify technical responsibility for the AI platforms, and its security program concerns protection of information. No public framework describes model release approval, bias evaluation, or results across languages and agreement types. Customer playbooks specify review positions, but they do not reveal how the vendor evaluates errors or uneven performance before introducing changes to its underlying AI.
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 Addendum says retention of personal data should generally not be required and is limited to the time absolutely necessary to perform the Services. Daily backups are kept for thirty days, and each third party document processing provider works under a stated zero retention arrangement. Data is returned or deleted at the customer's election within a reasonable period after the agreement ends, and the CCPA attachment requires prompt compliance with deletion requests. Access controls include role based authorization, least privilege, quarterly access reviews, multifactor authentication, encryption at rest, TLS of 256 bits or stronger in transit, and per tenant encryption keys. The subprocessor terms provide fifteen days' notice before additions, a right to object with termination and refund, and Conga's responsibility for provider acts. Incident notice comes within 48 hours of Conga becoming aware, backed by a response plan with root cause analysis and a 24/7 security team.
The customer agreement provides deletion of live Licensee Data at termination or on written request, while allowing encrypted backup copies for six months and retention required by law. The Privacy Notice supplies a similar rule for service personal data. Contract Analyzer describes encryption in transit and storage, and the wider platform offers access controls for enterprise use. Public materials also describe monitoring and independent security audits. They do not name a complete current subprocessor chain or establish a specific incident notification deadline. The service terms exclude protected health information, payment card data, and certain financial personal information from authorized uploads.
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 Artificial Intelligence Addendum states that Conga makes no warranty, express or implied, on the accuracy, completeness, noninfringement or fitness for purpose of AI generated output. The customer is solely responsible for evaluating and validating that output. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Conga is not liable for any losses, damages or claims arising from the customer's use of or reliance on AI output or on actions by agentic AI features. That includes third party claims. One allocation runs the other way. The Data Processing Addendum makes Conga liable for its subprocessors' acts and omissions as if it had performed the services itself, and much of the AI pipeline sits with those third parties. The addenda do not state a general liability cap, an indemnity scope or an insurance position. Conga's Master Services Agreement is a separate document.
The service agreement provides an intellectual property indemnity for claims that eBrevia's technology infringes third party rights, subject to a customer modification exclusion. That indemnity is expressly outside the general liability limit. Ordinary direct damages are capped at fees paid during the preceding 12 months, with consequential losses excluded and a one year limit for bringing an action. Separate exceptions cover specified personal injury, misconduct, and fraud claims. The functionality commitment uses commercially reasonable efforts, while accuracy and completeness are disclaimed. These terms provide defined recourse for technology infringement, but no specific indemnity or correctness warranty for generated legal output.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
Several of Conga CLM's integrations are structural. One edition runs natively on Salesforce and is listed on the Salesforce AppExchange. Authoring and review run inside Microsoft Word and Google Docs, and Microsoft Dynamics is named on the product page. The platform edition supports connections to CRM, ERP and procurement systems. Within Conga's own products, pricing, terms and configurations flow from CPQ into a contract. Documents are generated through Composer and signed through Conga Sign, and price optimization feeds contract pricing. Developer resources cover APIs and integrations. Field mapping and sync directions for individual external connectors are not specified alongside the broader connections.
DraftPro works inside Word and obtains clause language from the licensed eBrevia repository; users inspect suggestions and apply selected redlines to the draft. Connect handles incoming agreements and pushes extracted data into downstream systems. Its listed connections include iManage, NetDocuments, HighQ, Relativity, Salesforce, SharePoint, Microsoft applications, and reporting tools. Described operations include tagging files, assigning employees, validating data across systems, and generating reports. This establishes movement into and out of the contract platform. The public descriptions do not provide connector specific field mappings, permission synchronization rules, or installation procedures showing what each firm must configure.
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 CLM has two delivery forms. One is the original application built on Salesforce. The other is a software as a service edition on the Conga Advantage Platform that gives buyers a CLM interface independent of Salesforce. The Data Processing Addendum treats them differently. It states that Conga does not back up customer data for services hosted on Salesforce and sets no recovery point objective for them. Elsewhere it keeps daily backups for thirty days, with a one hour recovery point objective and a twenty four hour recovery time objective. Infrastructure is named as Salesforce, Amazon Web Services and Azure, with data on servers managed by Salesforce and AWS. Each logical tenant boundary has its own encryption key. Availability is described as spanning the United States, the European Union and Asia Pacific with residency options included, which names continents rather than regions. A region list, the method of choosing a tenant's region and separate processing locations are not specified. Content reaches Azure OpenAI, Google Cloud Vision, Amazon Textract and Zuva, and the processing locations are not specified.
eBrevia operates as a hosted contract platform with a Word add in connected to the licensed environment. Its Privacy Notice says hosting defaults to the United States unless the customer instructs otherwise, while also identifying facilities across several continents. The same notice explains that business processes cross borders and processing cannot always be confined to the individual's country. No public tier matrix identifies the alternative regions available for every product, and no separate location is supplied for each generative model task. A hosting instruction therefore provides some regional control without a complete account of storage, processing, and provider locations.
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 the full platform under annual audits, according to Conga. The trust center also lists ISO 27001, ISO 27701 as its privacy extension, PCI DSS, HIPAA Security with annual audits, GDPR and CCPA. It adds alignment to the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and certification under the EU-U.S. Data Privacy Framework. The Data Processing Addendum links that certification to the Department of Commerce register. The security program includes annual third party penetration testing, application vulnerability assessment twice a year, continuous automated threat hunting and code analysis before release. It also covers a patching service level by severity, background checks, annual security training and a vulnerability disclosure program. Auditor names, report periods, observation windows and certificate numbers are not available alongside those claims, and reports require a request. The Data Processing Addendum makes reports available on a customer's request under confidentiality, so a prospective buyer cannot read the audit scope before signing.
eBrevia states that it is independently certified for SOC 1 and SOC 2, and Contract Analyzer specifically names SOC 2 Type II infrastructure. The security description refers to continuing audits and monitoring, encryption, and controls for authorized access. It also claims GDPR and HIPAA compliance, which are separate from a disclosed audit report. No accessible report supplies the audit period, exceptions, or precise service scope. The public customer agreement additionally restricts protected health information, so the HIPAA marketing statement does not override that upload restriction or establish that a customer has an applicable business associate agreement.
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.
Generative features run on Microsoft Azure OpenAI. The document processing agents also use Google Cloud Vision for optical character recognition, Amazon Textract for table detection and Zuva for provision extraction, each under a stated zero retention arrangement. The Azure OpenAI Service is described as fully controlled by Microsoft, hosted in Microsoft's own Azure environment and not interacting with any system operated by OpenAI. Prompts, completions, embeddings and training data are tokenized in transit, are not available to OpenAI, and are not used to improve OpenAI, Microsoft or third party models. Change notice is contractual. The AI providers are subprocessors, and the Data Processing Addendum gives fifteen days' notice before a new one is appointed, with its name, location and activity. It also gives a right to object, and termination with a refund if no workaround exists. No specific model is named. The Addendum refers to Azure OpenAI GPT, which is a family rather than a version, and nothing states which model writes a summary or a redline or when that changes.
The suite distinguishes structured extraction from Lens, its generative layer for questions across contract material. Contract Analyzer has prepared fields and optional custom models, while DraftPro combines AI classification, playbook review, and clause reuse. eBrevia describes its own long development history in machine learning and natural language processing, but does not identify the foundation model providers serving current Lens or DraftPro requests. No version inventory, provider retention arrangement, or notification commitment for model changes is published in the product and contract materials. Named business integrations identify connected applications, not the model services that may process a customer's agreement.
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.
Conga CLM uses custom quotes without a numeric starting rate, a defined billing unit or a plan table. The application combines drafting, negotiation, approvals, electronic signature, contract storage and obligation management, with AI review and extraction inside that workflow. Additional products connect CPQ, document generation and signing to the wider suite. An advanced CLM feature set includes clause libraries, version control and redlining, but its incremental charge is not specified. Subscription duration, renewal provisions, price increase limits and implementation fees are not given with the quote request. The Master Services Agreement is separate from the AI and data processing addenda.
eBrevia quotes review projects according to contract volume, review scope, and required capabilities. Its service agreement sets fees and access in a proposal and defines a processed Document as no more than 300 pages. The default contract period is one year with annual renewal unless the proposal changes it, and nonrenewal requires 30 days' notice. Contract Analyzer, DraftPro, and Connect can form part of the licensed services. No numeric subscription rate or implementation charge is supplied publicly. Training and support appear within the service definition, but their inclusion and any additional cost depend on the negotiated proposal.
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.
Legal, procurement, sales, finance, IT, business operations and pricing teams use the suite. Their CLM tasks differ. Legal gets workflow, authoring, AI review and redlining, compliance and risk management. Procurement gets obligation management, AI extracted terms and pricing. Sales gets generation, AI assisted negotiation and renewals. Industry uses cover technology, financial services, healthcare, life sciences, manufacturing, transport and logistics, and distribution. Named customers span airlines, insurance, media, retail and property data. No practice area inside a legal department is named as supported or unsupported, and nothing states what the product is not for. Capability restrictions for users who are not lawyers are not specified inside a shared tenant. Jurisdiction and language coverage boundaries are also unspecified, although the product is localized into German and French.
The product addresses law firms, corporate legal departments, financial institutions, and audit or consulting teams. Law firm workflows include mergers and acquisitions diligence, bankruptcy and financing review, and compliance reporting. Contract Analyzer also supports leases, repapering, and migration of agreement data. DraftPro covers repeat commercial, employment, privacy, technology, finance, real estate, and corporate agreements, with sample playbooks for selected types and custom positions for others. Command extends contract information to procurement, sales, finance, and related business teams. Coverage is described through these tasks and examples, without a complete list of supported jurisdictions or performance boundaries for each language.
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 Artificial Intelligence Addendum expressly permits training on customer content, within written limits. Section (c) says Conga will not use Customer Data to train global or foundational models that serve multiple customers. Any training on Customer Data is limited to models specific to the customer's instance or tenant. Permitted training is limited to the customer's own data and a model only that customer uses, and neither the Addendum nor the trust center describes an opt out.
Conga does not use Customer Data to train third party foundational models, naming Azure OpenAI GPT as the example. Section (d) says Conga will not let any third party use Customer Data or AI Output to train, fine tune, validate, test or otherwise develop any AI model. Section (b) says that, beyond a limited license to provide, maintain or improve the Services for that customer, Conga will not use AI Inputs or AI Outputs to train or improve any model.
The trust center adds that models trained on one customer's data are never used for another. One carve out is reserved. Service Attributes, defined as anonymized and aggregated usage information, may be used to train and refine models and are stated not to be Customer Data.
The service agreement incorporates the Privacy Notice for uploaded material and service personal data. That notice permits personal information to support developing and improving products and services, without expressly excluding model training from that permission. The scope is personal data covered by the notice, not an assertion that every uploaded agreement is used for training. Public event material separately promises no training on client data, but a matching prohibition does not appear in the customer contract.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The Data Processing Addendum lets the customer control retention by contractual instruction. Attachment A sets the default. Retention of personal data should generally not be required, and any retention is limited to the time absolutely necessary to perform the Services. Section 9.6 requires return and deletion at the customer's election within a reasonable period after the agreement ends, with the customer deleting within the Services and Conga helping where it cannot.
The CCPA attachment adds a duty to follow any customer deletion instruction promptly. Daily backups are kept for thirty days, except for services hosted on Salesforce, which Conga does not back up. At the model layer, Conga states a zero retention policy with each third party document processing provider. Documents sent to Azure OpenAI, Google Cloud Vision, Amazon Textract and Zuva are therefore processed in real time and not stored. No zero retention setting is offered to the customer inside the Services.
The customer can instruct eBrevia in writing to delete live Licensee Data, and termination also triggers that deletion duty. The Privacy Notice similarly permits removal of personal data from live services on request. Encrypted backups may remain for six months, and legal retention requirements create an exception. This is control through a contractual instruction, rather than a published retention slider. No mode promises that prompts and generated answers are never retained during processing.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Conga CLM has its own permission model, which the customer administers. Between customers, separation is built into the architecture. Tenant environments are logically separated, each with its own encryption keys, and models trained on one customer's data are never used for another customer's recommendations or scores. Inside a tenant, the Data Processing Addendum's security attachment requires role based authorization, least privilege, quarterly access reviews, multifactor authentication and the customer's ability to limit access to authorized personnel.
Rules based access controls, audit logs and admin tools help the customer configure and manage AiMe, which leaves the alignment work with the customer. The product does not apply an outside document management system's access model at query time. The addenda and trust center do not address segregation between matters or business units inside one tenant. The platform is sold to legal, procurement, sales, finance and IT in the same instance, and the assistant answers questions across the whole contract repository.
DraftPro ties user access to the licensed eBrevia environment and can filter clause material by project, matter, contract type, or jurisdiction. Contract Analyzer supports assignments and enterprise access controls. Those features do not establish that retrieval enforces a firm's ethical walls or inherits the permissions of an upstream document repository. A matter filter organizes material for review; it is not, by itself, a documented security boundary preventing access to another client's information.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Section 4 of the Data Processing Addendum's security attachment is headed Disclosure by Law. If Conga is required by law to disclose customer data, it will notify the customer as soon as practical where the law permits. It will also take all steps to give the customer an opportunity to prevent or limit the disclosure, an obligation to help and not only to inform. The CCPA attachment adds a slightly stronger commitment for personal information.
For a legally required disclosure unrelated to the contracted business purpose, Conga must first tell the customer and give it a chance to object or challenge the requirement, unless the law prohibits notice. Conga will also redirect a misdirected data subject request to the customer and will not respond without the customer's prior written consent unless legally required. No transparency report, aggregate demand count or reporting cadence is available.
The Privacy Notice allows disclosure in response to an information request when eBrevia determines that law, regulation, or legal process permits or requires it. It also covers disclosures to protect rights and defend legal claims. Neither that provision nor the service agreement commits to informing the customer before producing material, and no transparency report is supplied. The confidentiality clause limits ordinary sharing but does not add a separate notice procedure for compulsory demands.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Conga CLM works from the customer's own material. That means contracts imported in bulk, including third party, legacy and acquired agreements, plus the customer's clause library, negotiation playbook and approved templates. The vendor states that precise models are built from the customer's own documents without the customer having to train them. The generative layer is named too. Azure OpenAI handles language processing, with Google Cloud Vision, Amazon Textract and Zuva for optical character recognition, table detection and provision extraction.
Conga states no rights basis for any of these sources and does not describe what the underlying foundation models were trained on. Zuva's extraction models are trained on contract collections rather than on the customer's documents, and they are named without any account of what sits behind them. On the customer's side, the Artificial Intelligence Addendum leaves the customer with all right, title and interest in its AI Inputs and AI Outputs and grants Conga only a limited license.
eBrevia's contract answers and clause library derive from agreements supplied to its repository. Lens asks questions of that material, while DraftPro reuses provisions from earlier contracts with filters for the current context. The service terms require the customer to hold the rights needed for uploaded material. No separate primary law collection, publisher license, or legal update schedule is described. Contract source traceability therefore establishes where an agreement answer came from, rather than the provenance of external legal authority.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
The product cites no cases, statutes or regulations, so checking authority for later history does not arise in its usual form. It works on the customer's own agreements, comparing drafts to a negotiation playbook, matching against an approved clause library, extracting obligations and dates, summarizing, and answering questions about the repository. Nothing it produces is a statement about the law that a lawyer would check for later treatment.
The nearest point is obligation and renewal tracking, where the question is whether a contractual date or duty is still live, and alerts and dashboards handle that. No feature checks legal authority for subsequent history.
A reviewer can follow an extracted provision back to the contract and assess it against a playbook. Neither that process nor a Lens answer checks whether a judicial authority has later been reversed or limited. The products focus on contract language, obligations, and company positions, with no named citator or subsequent treatment mechanism. A governing law field identifies a contract term; it does not establish that the law applied to the agreement remains current.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Conga commits that AiMe shows how every recommendation is generated, that users see the reasoning behind AI driven actions, and that confidence scores appear wherever AiMe makes a suggestion. That gives a reviewer a signal for each suggestion. Conga does not describe what the system does when it cannot ground an answer. An explicit refusal response or unsupported extraction marker is not specified. Nor does it say what happens when a clause cannot be matched to the playbook or a question cannot be answered from the repository.
No evaluation results for that behavior are available. The Artificial Intelligence Addendum allocates the consequences instead. It says outputs may be inaccurate, incomplete or misleading, makes the customer solely responsible for validating them, and states that Conga does not monitor or review AI generated outputs. The precise behavior of the guardrails is not specified.
Lens is described as producing contextual answers linked to contract material, but no public example specifies what it returns when the agreement cannot support an answer. DraftPro's pass or fail result concerns compliance with a chosen playbook, not uncertainty in the model's interpretation. Users can correct extraction, add missing clauses, and reject revisions. Those review controls leave room for human judgment without defining an automatic refusal or abstention path for unsupported output.
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 maintained by Damien Charlotin tracks decisions worldwide where a court addressed hallucinated AI content, and records the tool implicated where known. It records no court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Conga CLM or Conga. Two independent sanctions trackers of decisions on AI generated fabricated citations do not name them either. Conga CLM works on contracts and cites no legal authority, so its output does not ordinarily reach a court filing.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin has no entry naming eBrevia or e Brevia. The database records court decisions involving hallucinated AI material and identifies tools when the proceedings do so. eBrevia mainly analyzes agreements and proposes contract language, rather than preparing briefs from judicial authorities. That focus does not make its output infallible, and the absence of a named court case is not a test of extraction accuracy or drafting quality.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No bar or ethics guidance is named for the service. ABA Formal Opinion 512 does not appear, no state guidance on generative AI in legal practice is referenced, and nothing maps a capability to a jurisdiction's rules of professional conduct. Conga does cite outside frameworks, but none of them is professional responsibility guidance. The Artificial Intelligence Addendum ties governance to the NIST AI Risk Management Framework, and the trust center classifies the products as minimal or limited risk AI systems under the EU AI Act.
Both are addressed to the vendor as an AI provider. The nearest thing to a professional responsibility statement is the Addendum's requirement that the customer not rely on AI outputs as the sole basis for a decision with legal impact. It also requires the customer to exercise independent judgment. It names no guidance.
The service agreement separates software assistance from legal advice and places responsibility for decisions with the customer. DraftPro also keeps proposed changes subject to lawyer approval. These provisions establish a supervised product role, but no named bar opinion or jurisdiction specific ethics mapping accompanies them. The public materials do not connect use of Lens, shared client material, or automated contract revisions with particular duties of competence, confidentiality, disclosure, or supervision under a professional rule.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The product serves corporate teams managing their own commercial agreements. The named audiences are in house functions, legal, procurement, sales, finance, IT and business operations, each with its own page. The named customers are corporate, among them an airline, an insurer, a property data business, a consumer fitness company and a professional network. Nothing is addressed to a law firm billing a client. Conga's efficiency claims include a 9 percent revenue increase, 50 percent less review time with AI, faster deal cycles and lower supplier costs.
All of them concern the buyer's own cost, cycle time or revenue, and none reaches a client bill. The platform also runs quoting, pricing and billing, but that is the customer billing its own customers rather than a lawyer billing a client. No client fee disclosure workflow for AI assistance is specified.
eBrevia markets reduced review time and cost to law firms as well as corporate buyers. Its law firm use cases include diligence, financing review, and compliance reports, and the customer license expressly permits sharing resulting analysis with clients. These uses place the product inside legal service delivery where efficiency can affect a bill. The public product and contract materials do not explain how lawyers should record saved time, adjust billed hours, or disclose an AI related charge.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
Customer counsel can use the AI and data processing addenda to address a counterparty's AI clause. Conga's trust center names Google Cloud Vision for optical character recognition, Amazon Textract for table detection, Zuva for provision extraction and Azure OpenAI for language processing. It states a zero retention arrangement with each and explains what Azure OpenAI does and does not do with prompts and completions.
The subprocessor register identifies the supporting services. The Data Processing Addendum applies Clause 9(a) Option 2 of the Standard Contractual Clauses to that list, with fifteen days' notice, a right to object and termination with a refund. The Data Processing Addendum includes the standard contractual clauses and their UK and Swiss adaptations, alongside the separate Artificial Intelligence Addendum.
The service agreement, Privacy Notice, and security statements provide general information about confidentiality, retention, and permitted data. They do not include a current named model provider chain, a complete subprocessor register, or a client disclosure package for outside counsel use. Lists of supported applications describe integrations rather than organizations processing data on eBrevia's behalf. A firm can use the public contract material in diligence, but it does not resolve a client's AI specific notification requirements.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
The platform keeps a complete audit trail of every action, approval and signature across the contract lifecycle, which the vendor describes as supporting legal or internal reviews. It also keeps version control, tracked edits and inline comments. AiMe shows how every recommendation is generated and the reasoning behind AI driven actions, and confidence scores accompany each suggestion, so the basis of a proposed clause is visible at review.
No report or extract is described as identifying which model produced a passage, and the model is not named beyond a family. Conga describes no document level export, no marking of machine generated text against human edited text in a form a party could give a court, and no disclosure template, certification form or court guidance.
Contract Analyzer retains extracted terms beside source language and supports review status, annotations, and exported reports. DraftPro leaves selected revisions visible as Word redlines, while Command records contract activity and status changes. Those elements can help reconstruct what was reviewed. No public export combines the generating model, the full set of material used for an answer, and a named person's verification in one certificate. Contract analysis records therefore cover only part of a filing disclosure.
The questions both sides leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favor either vendor. Take these into both conversations and ask each side the same question.
- Good Law Verification
- Bar Guidance Alignment
Which one fits
Choose Conga CLM if
- The contract workflow must connect with a wider quoting and revenue process.
- Users negotiate in both Microsoft Word and Google Docs.
- Creation, approvals, and obligation management form the main operating requirement.
Choose eBrevia if
- The initial requirement is analysis of a large existing agreement collection.
- Lawyers want a clause library generated from their own stored contracts.
- Diligence outputs and extracted terms must feed other legal or reporting systems.
In summary
Conga CLM
Conga CLM carries agreements through creation, negotiation, approvals, and subsequent obligation management. Its connection with the wider Conga revenue offering is the product relationship highlighted by the AI Legal Index. AI assistance works with contract content and structured information, while negotiation can take place in Word or Google Docs. Conga's surrounding products include CPQ, document generation, and signature, so the intended contracting process determines which parts of that offering are relevant.
eBrevia
eBrevia combines extraction of agreement data with questions through Lens and Word review through DraftPro. The AI Legal Index identifies its automatically assembled clause library from previous repository agreements as a useful link between analysis and drafting. Command adds requests, responsibility, priority, and status tracking, while Connect moves contract information to other applications. Law firms and corporate teams can use the suite for focused review projects or continuing contract administration.
Questions buyers ask
What does eBrevia Command add to Contract Analyzer?
Command combines the repository and contract intelligence with management of requests, assignees, priorities, due dates, and workflow status. Contract Analyzer supplies extraction and review of the underlying agreements. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which drafting environments does Conga CLM support?
Its contract workflow includes negotiation in Microsoft Word and Google Docs. Those editing surfaces sit within the broader creation, approval, and management process. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does eBrevia require a manually maintained clause library?
DraftPro generates a library from agreements already stored in eBrevia. Reviewers can filter the language by context, agreement type, project, matter, or jurisdiction and insert or replace clauses in Word. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Are Conga's revenue tools all the same product as CLM?
No. Conga uses distinct product names for CLM, CPQ, document generation, and signature. Their functions can support a connected commercial process, but each has a different role. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything on it comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.
Conga's broader product range and eBrevia's combination of analysis and contract administration create overlap without identical purchase scopes. The individual products and integrations determine the actual deployed workflow.