Conga CLM vs Oneflow: how they compare in 2026
Conga CLM is a fit for organizations coordinating contracts with an existing Conga or Salesforce commercial stack. Its AiMe capabilities span the Salesforce and Advantage environments and support work in familiar drafting tools. Oneflow offers a more direct path from CRM opportunity data to a shared web agreement, with CPQ product tables and status changes synchronized back. The data terms deserve separate attention: Conga permits customer specific model improvement while restricting shared foundational training, whereas Oneflow prohibits training on customer data in its AI appendix. For that distinction in permitted model use, AI Legal Index separates tenant learning from a blanket training prohibition. Oneflow's generative AI confidentiality and recourse exclusions remain a separate consideration. Conga is attractive when contract operations belong within a larger revenue process; Oneflow is attractive when the shared agreement and CRM connection define the project.
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 supports several substantial contract tasks within Oneflow's wider platform. Write with AI drafts, edits and translates text inside an agreement; AI Extract imports participants, dates and duration into editable metadata. AI Review compares terms with a workspace playbook, and AI Insights aggregates the resulting risks across the portfolio. The premium package adds custom rules, dashboard widgets and a report for negotiation follow up. Electronic signatures, editable HTML agreements, permissions, approvals and renewal reminders continue to work without these models. Customers can disable AI, and several review capabilities remain in beta. AI therefore changes how users analyze contracts without replacing the underlying contract system.
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.
Review findings connect to highlighted passages in the agreement, with controls for moving between them. Each finding carries the relevant playbook concept, configured feedback and example clause text. A separate view identifies required clauses that the review did not find, while portfolio charts open the corresponding contract list. This lets the reviewer compare a proposed concern with the actual wording and the organization's rule. Oneflow warns that generated text can misstate facts, numbers and law and recommends human correction. No reproducible accuracy study, error rate or jurisdiction specific evaluation accompanies these features. The contract highlighting supports source verification, not validation of legal 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.
Administrators enable AI Review for a workspace and configure its playbook, including which clauses matter, which findings count as risks or issues, and what feedback appears. Role permissions separately control access to individual reviews and the Insights dashboard. Sent contracts receive continuing analysis; draft contracts require a manual review action. A person can inspect highlighted text, edit the playbook and use example wording when revising an agreement. The AI appendix advises human review before relying on output. No confidence cutoff, mandatory lawyer approval after an AI finding, or correction route for an already approved mistake is specified. Risk colors classify findings rather than stop execution.
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.
Puzzel's Sales Operations Manager, Anette Johnsen, describes generating offers and contracts from Salesforce opportunities with items from related CPQ quotes. She identifies a concrete benefit of the HTML format: participants revise one agreement instead of uploading successive files before signature. Other named users include Systembolaget's Head of Indirect Sourcing, Tor Myhrman, and Hedin Bil's HR Business Partner, Elin Skoglund, who describe handling agreements and maintaining oversight. These accounts establish operational use across sales, procurement and HR. They do not isolate AI review performance or supply a measured error reduction, evaluation period and sample for Oneflow's current AI packages.
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 AI appendix expressly prohibits Oneflow from training any AI model on customer data and takes precedence over conflicting general terms for AI features. Ordinary service confidentiality continues while information remains confidential, with restrictions on compelled disclosure. There is a consequential exception: the generative AI section excludes Oneflow's contractual confidentiality obligations along with liability, indemnities and service levels. Review, Insights and Extract have a separate processing section tied to the DPA. Workspace permissions and optional provider controls support access management, but attorney client privilege and work product receive no specific undertaking. The contract therefore requires attention to the exact AI functionality being enabled.
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.
Oneflow's AI appendix says output is not legal advice, legal conclusions, recommendations about legal rights or an application of law to a customer's circumstances. It advises human review because generated content can misstate law as well as facts. A separate UK article maps solicitor responsibilities to SRA standards, confidentiality, client communication and supervision, and describes practical review and pilot controls. North American terms also prohibit treating the platform as a substitute for an attorney. The product nevertheless serves sales, HR and other users without legal qualifications. No comprehensive jurisdiction by jurisdiction set of product restrictions or lawyer competence program is supplied.
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.
Oneflow promotes human accountability and warns against automation bias in its guidance for UK legal teams. It recommends evaluating missed issues, overrides and review quality rather than relying only on speed, and says its AI performs best in English and Swedish. These are useful limits and principles for customers designing a pilot. The public material does not identify an accountable AI governance owner, publish a model release evaluation, or report bias and performance differences across languages, contract types or populations. General ISO security controls and a list of security policies concern operational protection; they do not describe a separate AI testing and governance program.
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.
Contract data is encrypted with AES 256 at rest and TLS 1.2 in transit. Customers configure permissions and retention policies; administrators can disable optional providers or AI features. Global DPA terms require breach notification without undue delay, while the North American DPA specifies 48 hours. Daily database snapshots last seven days, and system and authentication logs last 90 days. The DPA permits limited residual backups after deletion without fixing that period. Generative AI history can follow provider terms, while the product page promises removal of temporary review and import data. That leaves no single, specific retention schedule for every prompt and output.
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.
Ordinary global service terms include an intellectual property defense obligation, a material performance warranty and a general cap based on 12 months of fees. Those protections do not carry through unchanged to AI. The appendix supplies AI output as is, disclaims warranties and excludes all liability and indemnification undertakings for generative AI functionality, together with confidentiality obligations and agreed service levels. It also permits specified AI suspensions or termination without reimbursing fees. North American terms contain the same generative AI exclusion. A wrong clause, inaccurate summary or reliance on generated advice has no specific affirmative AI remedy in these published terms.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
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.
The Salesforce integration creates interactive contracts from opportunities and transfers contact, company and opportunity data into them. Its configurable sync sends data from Salesforce objects into Oneflow and returns contract values to Salesforce. Product tables can reflect price books or CPQ quotes, while workflows map contract stages back to pipeline stages. Engagement events and status changes appear in the Salesforce timeline, and returned contract data supports dashboards. Oneflow identifies separate setup guidance for older and newer integration versions and compatibility with Professional edition upward. HubSpot, Dynamics 365 and other CRM connections complement this workflow; Salesforce and Dynamics can require premium integration charges.
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.
Production infrastructure uses AWS availability zones in Ireland, with document replication and backups in Sweden. Oneflow's AI FAQ broadly describes data as remaining in the EU, and Insights Premium is described as running within Oneflow's own EU infrastructure. The published subprocessor table gives a more varied picture: optional Legly review operates in Germany, optional OpenAI extraction in the United States, and Postmark email processing also in the United States. Administrators can disable optional services. The public descriptions do not fully reconcile these routes or map every AI function to a processing region. No on premises deployment is offered in the published package descriptions.
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.
A public certificate issued by Qvalify covers Oneflow AB's digital solution for contract automation under ISO 9001:2015, ISO 14001:2015 and ISO 27001:2022. It was issued on June 28, 2024 and remains valid through June 30, 2027, identifying the Stockholm organization and its registration number. A June 2026 statement of applicability lists the security controls and their implementation status. The security center separately identifies SOC 1 Type 1 and SOC 2 Type 1 reports issued by Grant Thornton, available under NDA. Those reports concern control design; neither is identified as a Type II examination of operating effectiveness over a stated period.
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 subprocessor list identifies Legly AB for contract review in Germany and OpenAI for extraction in the United States, alongside AWS infrastructure in Ireland and Sweden. Both AI suppliers are optional and controlled through account settings. The AI appendix directs customers to their Data Management page for the current generative model suppliers and their terms. It does not publish model versions or a complete function to model map. DPA provisions require reasonable advance notice of subprocessor changes to the customer's designated email address and allow a 14 day objection. That process concerns suppliers, without promising notice of every underlying model change.
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.
Business starts at $292 a month, billed annually, including five users; Enterprise has ten users and a custom quote. Business includes writing, extraction and summary features. Standard AI Review and Insights have conflicting public treatment: the pricing page marks paid beta additions, while September help guidance says they are included in Enterprise during beta. Insights Premium is explicitly a paid addition for Business and Enterprise. SMS, identity verification, premium integrations and enhanced support can cost more. A 14 day trial needs no card. Implementation has no published amount, and global annual renewals can increase by the greater of 5 percent or Swedish CPI.
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.
Legal, procurement, sales, finance and HR teams can create and manage agreements in Oneflow. Legal users configure review rules and approve terms; business teams use reusable templates and CRM data for offers, sales agreements and employment documents. Named customers span telecoms, retail, recruitment and public sector purchasing. UK guidance also addresses solicitors using AI for commercial contract review, bringing professional duties into the intended audience. AI is optimized for English and Swedish, with variable results in other languages. The product does not supply a jurisdiction specific research corpus, and its coverage statements do not define supported litigation work or every category of legal agreement.
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 AI appendix forbids Oneflow from using customer data to train any AI models and overrides conflicting general terms for AI issues. Inputs and attributable outputs fall within the customer data definition. The general service license permits improvement and anonymized analysis, and AI feedback may improve accuracy, but those clauses do not remove the express training ban. The product FAQ also says underlying models do not train on customer data.
Separate provider processing, retained history and the generative AI confidentiality exclusion remain relevant to handling client material.
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.
Oneflow permits customers to set retention policies for stored contracts, and its AI page says temporary import, review and Insights data is removed after use. Generative AI has a different contractual provision: input questions and output responses may remain as history under the model supplier's current terms. No uniform period covers that history or every provider copy. Daily database snapshots last seven days, system logs last 90 days, and residual backups after termination have no precise DPA deadline. Contract deletion therefore cannot be treated as an immediate purge of all AI processing records.
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.
Workspace roles control access to contracts, and Oneflow provides distinct permissions for AI Review and the Insights dashboard. Administrators enable review for selected workspaces and can disable AI features or optional suppliers. These controls can support departmental separation and limit who sees review results. The descriptions do not specify how retrieval enforces every contract permission within a workspace, how restrictions propagate to generated summaries, or how a law firm's matter wall follows an AI request. Permission controls alone do not establish a complete ethical wall mechanism for confidential client matters.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Section 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.
Global confidentiality terms require reasonable prior notice when disclosure is legally compelled, unless notice is prohibited, and reasonable assistance at the customer's expense in seeking protection. That gives the customer an opportunity to contest or narrow a request involving ordinary confidential service data. The AI appendix expressly removes contractual confidentiality obligations for generative AI functionality, so the same protection should not be assumed across every AI route.
No transparency report accompanies the commitment. North American and global agreements need to be matched to the contracting entity and enabled services.
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.
Oneflow's review and portfolio analysis work with the customer's agreements and configured playbook concepts. Example clauses come from the organization's rule setup, and drafting can use selected text as input. No catalog of legislation, reported decisions or licensed legal commentary is supplied for these features. Naming a model provider does not identify the legal sources in its training data or their licensing terms.
The UK educational articles link professional guidance, but those links do not constitute a legal research corpus inside the product.
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.
Highlighted review passages let a user inspect contract language, not whether a judicial decision remains authoritative. Oneflow has no published citator connection, treatment history service or automated check of legislation's current status. Teams maintain their own playbooks, including preferred and fallback clauses, so changing a rule after a legal development remains an organizational responsibility. The appendix warns that AI can generate incorrect law and recommends human review. A portfolio risk chart or missing clause flag does not establish that the underlying legal proposition remains valid.
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.
The AI Review interface separates findings from a missing clauses view. That view identifies playbook concepts absent from the agreement, giving the reviewer an explicit negative result instead of merely omitting a match. Red and yellow labels distinguish issues from risks; they are not numerical confidence estimates. Oneflow warns that generated facts and law can be wrong, but does not publish a general abstention rule for drafting or summaries. Missing clause handling is described for review, without promising that every unsupported question will be refused.
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.
Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases database contained no entry naming Oneflow as of October 16, 2026. The result covers the database's reported court incidents, not every private use of the product or every inaccurate contract response. Oneflow itself discusses court examples involving generic AI tools in educational material; those examples do not identify Oneflow as the tool involved. Contract drafting and risk analysis can still produce incorrect law, which the AI appendix expressly warns about. The absence of a named incident provides no accuracy guarantee.
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.
Oneflow's UK contract review guidance maps SRA standards and conduct duties to human supervision, confidentiality, client transparency and practical controls. It also discusses insurance, data protection and the legal team's responsibility for final judgment. This is a jurisdiction specific mapping with suggested review steps, rather than a generic statement that lawyers remain responsible. It is vendor guidance, not regulator approval or an independent finding of compliance. The mapping does not establish equivalent coverage for every jurisdiction in which Oneflow sells its platform.
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.
The vendor's UK AI review material addresses solicitors as well as internal legal departments and promotes faster review with retained professional judgment. Its product pages also describe reducing routine contract work and administrative effort. No accompanying procedure explains how a firm records AI time, adjusts a client invoice, discloses savings or passes through Oneflow charges. Subscription pricing is the buyer's software cost rather than a client billing policy.
Because the audience includes lawyers serving clients, the time savings claims cannot be treated solely as an organization's internal operating expense.
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.
Oneflow supplies a public DPA, global and North American service terms, an AI appendix and a subprocessor table with functions and processing locations. Optional AI suppliers include Legly and OpenAI, and administrators can control optional services. A public ISO certificate and statement of applicability support security diligence; SOC reports require an NDA. These materials help counsel explain data handling to a client.
They do not form a dedicated client AI disclosure package, and the generative AI confidentiality exclusion and conflicting regional descriptions require specific attention in any outside counsel approval process.
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.
AI Insights supports an export of portfolio analysis, and reviewers can inspect the contract passages associated with a playbook finding. Insights Premium adds an action report for internal discussion and negotiation. Enterprise also includes an account audit log, while signing workflows maintain transaction records. The published export instructions do not establish a complete record of model identity, prompt, output and human edits for each AI action.
These are useful contract administration records, but no court disclosure template or complete model provenance export is described for a later filing.
The questions both sides leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favor either vendor. Take these into both conversations and ask each side the same question.
- Good Law Verification
Which one fits
Choose Conga CLM if
- Your contract project already depends on the Conga commercial software stack.
- AiMe access across Salesforce and Advantage matters to your operating model.
- Drafting teams need the supported Word and Google Docs workflows.
Choose Oneflow if
- You want Salesforce opportunities and CPQ items to populate one live agreement.
- Business users need an editable web contract before electronic signature.
- An express customer data training ban is a procurement requirement.
In summary
Conga CLM
Conga combines CLM workflow and AiMe assistance across its commercial software environments. Word, Google Docs and browser work support drafting and review alongside connected business processes.
Oneflow
Oneflow creates HTML agreements from CRM records and lets participants revise the shared contract before signing. AI adds extraction, writing and workspace review, with a public Business starting price.
Questions buyers ask
Do Conga and Oneflow use the same contract editing environment?
Conga supports drafting in Word, Google Docs and a browser. Oneflow centers collaboration on an interactive web agreement, while imported files can enter its repository and review workflows. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Is customer specific learning prohibited by both agreements?
Conga's terms permit learning within the customer environment under specified restrictions. Oneflow's AI appendix prohibits training any AI model on customer data, despite general service improvement permissions elsewhere. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does Oneflow's published price include every review feature?
Business begins at $292 a month billed annually for five users. Standard review beta pricing differs across its public pages, and Insights Premium is a paid addition; a full review deployment needs a precise order. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What comparison matters beyond the Salesforce logos?
When evaluating the actual Salesforce workflow, AI Legal Index highlights Oneflow's described object, quote and stage synchronization. Conga's appeal is the wider contract and revenue stack in which Salesforce is one operating environment.
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 customer specific learning permission differs from third party or shared model training.