Contractzy vs Ironclad: how they compare in 2026
Contractzy fits a team organizing contract review around editable risk guidebooks, severity labels, and a shared lifecycle workspace. CORA AI identifies departures from those positions, tracks revisions, and converts commitments into assigned obligations. Its deployment choices include a single tenant environment or installation on customer premises. Ironclad offers a different review experience within its broader contracting system. Contract Review Agent, formerly Jurist, proposes inline changes with explanations and supporting context, and runs in Microsoft Word as well as Ironclad. Reviewers can accept, reject, or revise each suggestion while the surrounding platform handles requests, approvals, signing, and repository work. Both products therefore combine AI review with conventional contracting operations. The practical distinction is Contractzy's guidebook driven workflow and hosting flexibility versus Ironclad's review agent embedded in the team's Word and CLM activity. Neither product's complete subscription cost follows from an AI feature price alone.
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.
CORA AI powers contract risk analysis, summarization, metadata extraction, and obligation management inside a broader contract lifecycle platform. Review starts with company guidebooks, while extraction turns scanned PDFs, images, and Word files into searchable information. Obligation management creates owners, milestones, deadlines, and renewal alerts from agreements. Templates, clause libraries, approvals, signatures, version history, and the repository remain useful without model inference. Essentials and Professional also separate conventional contracting functions from the fuller AI package in Enterprise. The models therefore run substantial review and analysis functions, while established workflow and storage features remain a separate part of the product.
Intake, the no code Workflow Designer, approvals, signature, the repository and analytics run without AI, and Ironclad sells that system of record as the base of the platform. Ironclad AI sits on top of it. Ironclad Agent takes a plain language request and returns the answer, the contract or the workflow, or hands the task to a specialized agent. Contract Review Agent redlines third party paper against playbooks and, in early access, precedent, Intake Agent pulls terms into launch forms, Renewal Agent briefs upcoming renewals, and Analytics Agent charts contracting data. The agents act on live workflow state, such as where a contract sits in approval, as well as on documents. The contract platform predates generative AI and would still work without the models.
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.
Risk analysis highlights ambiguous clauses and departures from company guidebooks, then lets reviewers inspect changes through tracked redlines. CORA AI also extracts parties, dates, monetary terms, and obligations from uploaded agreements. Accuracy claims include 98% for risk detection, 95% or more for metadata extraction, and up to 99% in the pricing FAQ, without a defined evaluation set or error breakdown. The contract text supplies context, but a retrieval method with linked primary legal authority and citation treatment is unspecified. Severity labels describe contractual risk rather than confidence in an answer. Critical decisions still call for human review under the pricing guidance.
Ironclad's extraction uses two passes to connect values to source text. The model returns each value with a description of where it sits in the contract. A second pass ties that value to the exact OCR tokens, so the interface highlights the passage with its page and position. If the model returns no match, the system tries the raw text and then the normalized value before giving up on a location. Contract Review Agent bases redlines on the customer's playbooks and templates, with precedent based redlining in early access, and redlines can show their rationale. Answers through the MCP connectors link back to the contract in Ironclad. No accuracy figure, error rate or test set is available, and the AI Addendum says output may be incorrect or inaccurate.
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.
Reviewers upload a Word or PDF guidebook or generate one with AI, scan an agreement, and inspect highlighted risks and tracked revisions. Editable guidebooks encode company requirements, and alerts identify departures or high risk clauses. Contracts failing mandatory criteria are prevented from advancing until compliance is ensured. Legal teams retain control over precise edits, with approval routing and version history supporting review before execution. The pricing guidance recommends human review for critical decisions. The remaining uncertainty is the control path after an incorrect classification: the criteria configuration, override permissions, and escalation route for an AI error are not specified.
Ironclad Agent routes each request to the right agent or workflow, and the agents work inside existing contracting workflows under the user's permissions. Contract Review Agent proposes redlines, flags risk and applies positions in Ironclad or directly in Microsoft Word, with the final decision left to the reviewer. Playbooks set preferred positions and fallbacks, and answers through the MCP connectors are limited to contracts the user can already open. The AI Addendum makes the customer responsible for reviewing and validating output before using it, and says the AI products are no substitute for human oversight. Agent stop conditions, handback routes and limits on work completed without a person are not specified.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
Legal leaders at Bajaj Markets, Bridgestone, and Easebuzz describe actual use of the platform. Manish Jain emphasizes responsive support; Reni Verghese describes managing contracts against timelines; Nitin Bhuwania describes reducing administrative effort and retrieving executed agreements after digitization. These accounts identify customers and concrete activities, although they do not supply dated before and after measurements. Separate CORA AI claims include an internal study of faster summarization and improved extraction, without a disclosed sample or method. Implementation generally takes two weeks to one month depending on integrations, customization, and migration. That estimate describes rollout effort rather than a measured customer outcome.
Named customers report figures. NEXT Insurance says Contract Review Agent gave legal operations half its time back, and AES reports first pass redlines that took 30 minutes to two hours now reach a first draft in minutes. Signifyd puts an MNDA review or custom order form clause at minutes rather than an hour to a day, and Hormel's senior counsel reports turnaround cut from 12 weeks to 3. A Forrester study drawn from five customer organizations puts the three year return at 314 percent. Apart from that study, the figures come from the customers themselves, undated and with no method stated.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
The agreement limits personal data use to delivering, maintaining, securing, and improving the contracted services under customer instructions. It covers contract files, attachments, metadata, communications, approval records, and access logs, and rules out selling customer data or unrelated advertising uses. Subprocessors must accept protections at least as strong as the agreement. Role permissions restrict visibility to authorized departments and users, while production access follows least privilege. The improvement permission contains no explicit model training exclusion. Privilege preservation, work product treatment, matter isolation during retrieval, and foundation model retention commitments remain unspecified, so these provisions do not settle every confidentiality question for a law firm.
Ironclad's AI Addendum lets it train its own models on customer data, input and output only after a customer enables AI Training Settings in the admin console. An opt out stops new training from that date. That data is first de identified, anonymized and aggregated, and output for other customers may not contain it. Whether or not a customer opts in, Ironclad may use input and output to evaluate the performance and accuracy of the service. External model providers may not train on customer data and run under zero data retention where available. The Enterprise Services Agreement treats customer data as confidential information, and SOC 2 covers the privacy category. The terms say nothing about attorney client privilege or work product, and access follows roles without specified matter boundaries.
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.
Legal departments use CORA AI to identify contractual risks, make edits, and manage approvals, while procurement, sales, finance, and HR users share the broader workflow. Human decision authority is explicit in the product positioning, and critical decisions are subject to a recommendation for human review. The CORA AI introduction also directs customers to consult their legal departments about regulatory implementation. Those operating instructions do not establish an advice versus software boundary, permitted legal jurisdictions, or a position on unauthorized practice. The software terms disclaim warranties generally without a specific legal advice disclosure. Nonlawyer participation is supported without a corresponding professional responsibility framework.
Ironclad markets its AI to legal teams and to sales, procurement and operations users, and describes the platform as built for everyone, lawyers or not. Its AI Addendum states that Ironclad is not the customer's legal advisor, that using the AI products creates no attorney client relationship, and that the customer should consult its own counsel. A separate AI Disclaimer says output is not legal advice and should be verified with a licensed professional before anyone acts on it. Neither document addresses competence or supervision duties, or which jurisdictions the product suits.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
The CORA AI introduction describes pretrained language models refined through legal expert feedback, regular updates, and testing across legal scenarios. That establishes a quality aspiration but leaves release criteria, review ownership, evaluation sets, and results across contract types or jurisdictions unspecified. The model training description refers broadly to contracts, legal materials, and precedents rather than a traceable evaluation program. Prajot Borkar is the named data protection officer, responsible for privacy compliance; that role does not establish accountability for model behavior. Company guidebooks let customers impose their own contract policies, but they are distinct from governance of the vendor's models and training process.
Ironclad says every AI feature passes through its Evaluation Framework, which measures accuracy, consistency and reliability against curated benchmarks and real contract data. Subject matter experts validate model output during development and after release, with feedback loops meant to catch bias early, and training data is chosen to cover varied contract types and jurisdictions. Dimitry Dukhovny, the chief information security officer, leads security, compliance and AI governance. Customers can review, override and keep governing agent behavior across teams and contract types. Evaluation results and performance differences by contract type, jurisdiction or party are not available.
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 May 2026 agreement identifies eight subprocessors and their functions, including AWS for hosting, Bedrock inference, and Textract processing. Controls include encryption, least privilege access, internal multifactor authentication, audit logs, restricted production access, monitoring, and backups. Incident procedures cover identification, investigation, management, and response. Customer notification follows a confirmed personal data breach without undue delay where legally required, rather than an unconditional fixed deadline. Data remains as long as needed for service, legal, dispute, or security purposes. Return or deletion follows a written request at termination within a commercially reasonable timeframe, with unspecified backup schedules and legal exceptions.
Ironclad's Data Processing Addendum, version 3.10 from 5 March 2026, limits storage of customer personal data to what the services need. It destroys all copies, archives included, within 90 days of the agreement ending, returns data within 30 days on request and issues a deletion certificate within 30 days. A security incident is reported to the customer within 48 hours of Ironclad becoming aware of it. The subprocessor list names each provider, its activity and its location for the United States platform, the EU datacenter and Clickwrap. A new subprocessor comes with 30 days' email notice and a right to object. External model providers run under zero data retention and may not train on customer data. Data is encrypted with TLS 1.2 or higher in transit and AES 256 at rest, with per tenant keys and bring or hold your own key options, and access follows administrator set roles.
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 software terms cap the operator's and suppliers' liability at the amount the client actually paid. Service comes as is and as available, with broad exclusions for warranties, fitness, noninfringement, accuracy of performance, and correction of errors. The agreement does not attach an indemnity, insurance commitment, or enforceable accuracy warranty to CORA AI output. It also excludes responsibility for incomplete or corrupt backups and places independent backup responsibility on the client. India is the defined country for governing law, with informal dispute resolution first. These terms allocate general software risk without promising a remedy for an incorrect contractual recommendation.
The Enterprise Services Agreement, version 2.2 effective July 2026, governs warranties and financial remedies. Ironclad defends and indemnifies customers against third party claims that the platform infringes intellectual property, and against claims from unauthorized disclosure of customer data caused by its breach of the data and security terms. It warrants that the services materially conform to the agreement and comply with applicable law; if a nonconformity is not fixed within 30 days, the customer may terminate for a pro rata refund. Liability is capped at the fees paid in the prior twelve months, rising to three times that amount for data and confidentiality breaches and the data indemnity. Gross negligence, intentional misconduct and the intellectual property indemnity sit outside the cap, and consequential loss is excluded. The service level schedule targets 99.7 percent uptime, with service credits as the remedy. The customer bears sole responsibility for results from AI output, which Ironclad does not warrant as accurate, and the agreement carries no insurance commitment.
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.
Salesforce users can create, approve, and sign contracts within their CRM, while HubSpot data can generate agreements and feed approval and signature steps. Oracle supports contract creation and management, and Jira tickets initiate creation and approvals. Slack brings contract updates and actions into team conversations; Gmail supports workflows from the inbox. DocuSign, Adobe Sign, and UAE Pass provide signature connections, with Zoho also supporting contract generation and tracking. Custom APIs and integrations are available. Field mappings, authentication setup, synchronization conflicts, and permission propagation are not described, so the connection list does not establish a complete implementation specification for each workflow.
Ironclad offers native integrations, iPaaS connections to more than 8,000 applications, and an API, with Tray, Zapier and MuleSoft in its directory. The directory names Salesforce, which is AppExchange approved, Coupa, SAP, NetSuite, Zip and Ramp, Microsoft Word and Teams, Slack, DocuSign and Adobe Acrobat Sign, and Box, Google Drive, OneDrive, Dropbox and Egnyte. MCP connectors answer questions about contracts and workflow status in Claude, ChatGPT and Slackbot, scoped to the user's permissions and linked back to Ironclad. No iManage or NetDocuments connector is identified, and the directory does not specify individual field mappings or sync directions.
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.
AWS cloud hosting is the standard delivery route, with an additional single tenant cloud option and deployment on customer premises. Implementation scope depends on integrations, migration, and customization, and Enterprise includes custom integration and deployment options. The agreement identifies AWS operations as global, including India, Singapore, and the United States, while other processors operate in additional global locations. Cross-border safeguards may include applicable standard contractual clauses. These locations describe the processor network rather than selectable customer residency regions. The division between contract storage, model inference, OCR processing, and backup locations is not specified for each deployment option or subscription tier.
Ironclad runs as a cloud service on Google Cloud Platform, in multiple zones in the United States, with a separate EU datacenter. For EU hosted customers the subprocessor list places Anthropic and OpenAI, along with Elastic Cloud, Datadog and the product database, in the EU, so AI processing stays in that region too. Clickwrap runs separately on Amazon Web Services in the United States. Customers can bring or hold their own encryption keys. Ironclad does not describe a tenancy model or what changes between plans.
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.
The company identifies itself as ISO 27001:2022 certified and describes encryption, AWS hosting, role permissions, and restricted production access. Its agreement adds TLS 1.2 or later, internal multifactor authentication, continuous monitoring, security alerts, and backup and recovery measures. On a reasonable written request, the company may provide existing compliance material, certifications, or third-party audit reports instead of a disruptive audit. A current certificate scope, validity period, and directly accessible report are not supplied with these statements. Generic security language and a badge do not establish the scope of a separate SOC 2 examination or an AI-specific assurance program.
Ironclad holds SOC 1 and SOC 2 Type II reports from routine third party audits covering security, availability, confidentiality and privacy, along with ISO 27001, 27701, 27017 and 27018. It runs a GDPR program with standard contractual clauses, complies with HIPAA and holds Cloud Security Alliance Trusted Cloud Provider status, with a public CAIQ on the alliance's site. Penetration tests run each year and vulnerability tests each quarter, and disaster recovery is tested twice a year. Certification documents are requested through a security portal, and the website gives no auditor, audit period or report date.
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.
Amazon Bedrock supplies AI and machine learning processing, and Amazon Textract handles OCR and document processing within the AWS subprocessor role. CORA AI uses an array of pretrained language models and a training process involving legal contracts, materials, precedents, and expert feedback. This identifies infrastructure and broad architecture, while leaving the foundation model families, versions, routing rules, and fine-tuning arrangements unnamed. Subprocessors may change as technical or operational needs evolve. The agreement does not commit to advance model change notices or identify which model handles a particular risk review, summary, or obligation extraction. Provider locations likewise do not assign inference to a particular region.
Contract Review Agent uses models from Google Gemini, OpenAI and Anthropic, chosen for quality, latency and performance, and Ironclad says it evaluates and swaps in models as they change. Its own models, which learn from aggregated, anonymized data of customers who opt in, sit alongside them. The subprocessor list names Anthropic, OpenAI and Extend for AI and Google Cloud Platform for cloud and AI infrastructure, each in the United States or the EU. A new subprocessor brings 30 days' email notice and a right to object, and AI subprocessors run under zero data retention where available and may not train on customer data. Ironclad does not say which model serves which agent, and a change of model within an existing provider triggers no notice.
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.
Essentials supports up to three users and 50 contracts each month; Professional allows up to ten users and 200 contracts; Enterprise starts above ten users with 500 monthly contracts. Each base subscription requires a quote. The pricing matrix lists Professional AI risk analysis at $40 per user per month, with up to 100 analyses monthly, while Enterprise includes 20 free reviews. Unlimited storage and distinct signature allowances accompany the plans. Reviewers need no additional license. Integrations, customization, migration, and deployment affect implementation scope, but their charges are not stated. The AI add-on figure therefore does not represent the total cost of running the platform.
The base CLM, AI assistant and eSignature products use a custom quote, with deployment led by the customer, Ironclad's legal engineers or a partner. API connections, integrations, extra instances and support plans can add charges. Eligible agents consume a shared pool of AI Credits, with additional use billed at $1 per unit unless administrators enable a cap or buy prepaid packs. Not every AI feature uses those credits, and existing Contract Review Agent seat arrangements continue through the current contract term. Playbook creation and optimization require Professional Services; precedent redlining and Playbook Agent are in early access. A starting platform rate and fixed implementation fee are not specified.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
The primary audience is corporate legal operations alongside procurement, finance, sales, HR, compliance, and operational teams. Legal workflows include drafting, negotiation, risk review, approval, execution, repository retrieval, and ongoing obligations. Sector offerings include fintech, automotive, manufacturing, healthcare, software, real estate, logistics, and other commercial industries. Templates and guidebooks adapt review to company policies, while repository filters include jurisdiction, expiry, and contract value. Regional offerings span Europe, the Americas, Asia, and the Middle East, but a jurisdiction and language support matrix is unspecified. Litigation research, court filing, and consumer legal representation are not established parts of the contracting service.
Ironclad sells to enterprise and growing companies, with dedicated pages for general counsel, legal operations, procurement, sales and IT. It describes the platform as handling every contract type, from legal and sales to finance, HR, marketing and procurement, from intake through renewal. Named customers include Mastercard, L'Oreal, Cisco, Docker, Gusto and Rippling. The platform centers on contracting, while Contract Review Agent also supports legal questions with embedded citations. Ironclad does not say which organization sizes or contract types it does not serve.
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 DPA allows personal data use for providing, maintaining, securing, and improving the services, subject to customer instructions. Contract files, attachments, and related workflow records fall within that processing scope. The improvement right has no explicit model training exclusion, while advertising profiling and unrelated commercial uses are prohibited. This is a contractual permission for improvement, not a statement that customer contracts actually train CORA AI.
Section 1.1 of the AI Addendum, version 2.1 from 20 April 2026, lets Ironclad train its own models on customer data, input and output once the customer turns on AI Training Settings. The data is de identified, anonymized and aggregated first, an opt out stops new training but not training already under way, and external model providers may never train on it. Ironclad's product FAQ says the default setting depends on the customer's agreement and data location.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Personal data remains for as long as needed to operate the service, meet legal obligations, resolve disputes, and enforce agreements. Written requests at termination can trigger return or deletion within a commercially reasonable timeframe. Backup copies persist under unspecified schedules, with legal, security, and audit exceptions. No routine duration is assigned specifically to prompts, generated summaries, or review outputs while the subscription remains active.
During the term, the Data Processing Addendum keeps customer personal data only as long as the services need it, and the AI Addendum sets no separate period for prompts and output. All copies are destroyed within 90 days after the agreement ends, with a 28 day window to export the repository. External model providers run under zero data retention.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Department and user permissions limit visibility into contract status, approvals, obligations, and renewals. The DPA also specifies role permissions, least privilege, and restricted production access. Neither provision explains how CORA AI retrieval enforces a law firm's matter walls or inherits permissions from an external document system. Single tenant deployment separates organizations, but does not by itself establish boundaries between conflicting matters inside one organization.
Ironclad keeps its own role based permissions, set by administrators, rather than inheriting them from a document system. Agents and MCP answers respect the same permissions, so a user sees only the contracts already open to them. Nothing describes walls between matters, since the product is built for in house teams rather than firms.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The DPA requires prompt notice when a data subject requests access, correction, deletion, or another personal data right. That obligation concerns individuals exercising privacy rights, not subpoenas or government demands for customer contracts. The software terms and privacy provisions do not establish a separate commitment to tell customers before responding to compulsory legal process. Breach notifications are also a different event and do not settle this question.
The Data Processing Addendum commits Ironclad to tell the customer promptly of any government or law enforcement request for its personal data, unless the law forbids it, and to help the customer contest it. The Enterprise Services Agreement allows disclosure of confidential information under a court or government order after reasonable notice where the law permits. No transparency report is available.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Risk review uses customer guidebooks uploaded in Word or PDF, company playbooks, and the contract being analyzed. CORA AI's training description also refers to broad datasets of legal contracts, materials, and precedents. It does not identify a primary law collection, its licensing basis, or an update schedule for individual sources. A company policy guidebook supplies contractual positions, but does not establish the origin or currency of legal authorities.
Ironclad's AI works over the customer's own contracts, playbooks and workflow data rather than a body of law. Its own models learn from aggregated, anonymized patterns across customers who opt in, and Ironclad cites more than 2 billion contracts processed. No source, scale, license or refresh cycle is given for that training data.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
CORA AI scans agreements for risky clauses and deviations from a company's guidebook, then presents severity labels and suggested revisions. No case treatment indicator or connection to a named legal citator accompanies that review workflow. Regular legal updates are a general training claim rather than a check on an authority's subsequent history. The human review recommendation concerns critical decisions and does not describe automatic verification that cited law remains valid.
Ironclad centers on contracts, while Contract Review Agent can also answer legal questions with embedded citations. No citator, treatment signal or check of later history is described.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Critical, high, medium, and low labels prioritize the contractual significance of a detected issue. They do not measure the model's confidence or describe what happens when an answer lacks support. Mandatory compliance criteria can stop a contract from advancing, but that workflow restriction is separate from an AI refusal to answer. The risk and summary workflows do not specify an unsupported-answer response or a grounding threshold shown to reviewers.
Contract Review Agent flags missing clauses and departures from a company's standards, and extraction highlights the passage each value came from. When the model cannot place a value, the grounding system retries on the raw and normalized text rather than returning nothing. No path for declining to answer, and no confidence signal for the user, is described.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court finding involving Contractzy, CORA AI, or The Legal Capsule appears in the AI Hallucination Cases database as of October 15, 2026. The current name and former brand produced no relevant match across its 2,191 entries. This dated result concerns reported proceedings. It does not establish that generated clauses or legal assertions are accurate, or rule out a proceeding outside that collection.
Ironclad has no entry in the AI Hallucination Cases database, Damien Charlotin's record of court decisions involving hallucinated AI content. Ironclad is a contracting platform, and its output is seldom filed with a court as cited authority.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
The CORA AI introduction encourages customers to involve their legal departments when aligning implementation with regulatory requirements. Product guidance also recommends human review for critical decisions. These directions do not engage with a named bar opinion, client consent standard, or professional competence rule. The intended corporate legal audience and collaboration with nonlawyer departments are clear, while a jurisdiction-specific ethics mapping for use of AI in legal work remains unspecified.
Ironclad's AI Addendum and AI Disclaimer say output is not legal advice and should be verified with a licensed professional. No ethics opinion or bar guidance is named, ABA Formal Opinion 512 included.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
CORA AI is positioned for corporate departments managing their employer's contracts, alongside procurement, sales, finance, and HR. Faster review, metadata extraction, and obligation tracking reduce those teams' own administrative costs. That workflow does not ordinarily create a bill from outside counsel to a client. Subscription charges and AI add-on units price the software, while no client time-entry adjustment or legal fee disclosure feature is described for the core corporate use case.
Named corporate customers describe shorter contract reviews and less legal operations work. NEXT Insurance reports recovering half of its legal operations time, while AES and Signifyd describe first redlines and NDA reviews in minutes. The platform serves internal legal, procurement, sales and operations teams handling their organization's agreements. It does not provide a law firm billing workflow or a client fee disclosure process for the time saved.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The DPA names AWS, Razorpay, DocuSign, Zoho Sign, emSigner, Digio, OnlyOffice, and Mailgun with locations and purposes. AWS includes Amazon Bedrock for AI processing and Textract for OCR, giving procurement teams a concrete starting point for provider disclosure. Foundation model versions and a client consent package are unspecified. Subprocessors may change with operational needs, without a separate advance-notification period or customer objection process in the listed terms.
Ironclad's subprocessor list names Anthropic, OpenAI and Extend for AI and Google Cloud Platform for cloud and AI infrastructure, with locations for the United States platform and the EU datacenter. The Enterprise Services Agreement, Data Processing Addendum and AI Addendum are public in its legal center. A new subprocessor brings 30 days' email notice and a right to object. No notice pack for a client's outside counsel guidelines is available.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Tracked revisions, version history, contract audit trails, and approval records preserve parts of the drafting and review process. Legal teams can see changes and updates as agreements move through the lifecycle. Those records do not establish a per-contract export identifying the model, retrieved sources, and a human's verification of each AI result. The platform addresses commercial contract execution; a court filing disclosure or certification workflow is not specified.
Ironclad's workflows record routing, assignment and approvals for each contract, and AI review is described as auditable, with humans able to review and override it. Extracted values highlight their source passage and redlines can show their rationale. No export records which model produced an output or who verified it. Ironclad's output is contract work rather than court filings.
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
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
- Bar Guidance Alignment
Which one fits
Choose Contractzy if
- Your risk review starts with a company guidebook and severity categories shared across departments.
- A deployment on customer premises is part of the contracting project.
- You want extracted commitments assigned to owners alongside renewal and notice alerts.
Choose Ironclad if
- Reviewers want explained, source linked edits in Word and in an existing Ironclad workflow.
- The organization already uses Ironclad to connect intake, approvals, and executed agreements.
- Legal users need drafting and risk analysis from the same specialized contract review agent.
In summary
Contractzy
Contractzy connects drafting, negotiation, approval, signature, storage, and obligation monitoring in one platform. CORA AI analyzes agreements against an uploaded or generated guidebook and groups issues by severity. Its conversion of contract commitments into owners, tasks, and reminders is a product distinction identified by the AI Legal Index. Legal teams can share summaries with other departments while keeping approvals and revisions in the same workspace. The Professional plan supports up to ten users and 200 contracts monthly; its AI risk option is separate from the quoted base subscription.
Ironclad
Ironclad's Contract Review Agent brings playbook based redlining, risk analysis, and drafting into Word or an active Ironclad workflow. Suggestions appear as tracked changes with an explanation and supporting source. The AI Legal Index highlights that review surface as a way to inspect proposed wording before accepting it. Existing Jurist users retain their access under the new name. The wider CLM system carries the agreement through approvals and signature and retains it for later questions, reporting, and other contract operations.
Questions buyers ask
Is Jurist a separate product from Ironclad's Contract Review Agent?
Contract Review Agent is the new name for Jurist. Existing users retain their permissions and review capabilities, with entry points in Ironclad workflows and the Word add in. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How does Contractzy turn a legal playbook into a review?
A team uploads a Word or PDF guidebook, edits its policies, or generates a guidebook with AI. CORA applies it to an agreement, highlights risk, and tracks proposed revisions. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does Contractzy's $40 rate cover the entire CLM platform?
No. That figure is the Professional AI risk analysis option per user per month. The underlying subscription, deployment, and implementation require their own commercial quote. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which provides a Word review interface for this comparison?
Ironclad explicitly offers Contract Review Agent inside Microsoft Word. Contractzy's described review path uses its contract workspace and guidebook controls; its file support includes Word and PDF uploads. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 15, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything on it comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.
Contractzy was formerly The Legal Capsule and is operated by Attort Legal Consultancy Private Limited. Ironclad's Jurist name now refers to Contract Review Agent. This comparison separates currently available review functions from optional deployment and commercial arrangements.