iManage vs NetDocuments: how they compare in 2026

The models are the engine of a core capability layered on a platform that stands entirely without them, and the vendor draws the line itself. The FAQ on the AI page states that Mailbox Assistant, AI Services and Ask iManage are not included in a standard cloud subscription and must be purchased as additional products, and that iManage AI is available only on the cloudimanage.com endpoint, with customers still being moved there. The platform underneath is a document and email management system with security, governance, records, conflicts, knowledge search, transaction management and workflow products, sold for decades and bought for that. AI Enrichment classifies and extracts at scale and Ask iManage answers questions from the repository; remove both and the DMS is unchanged. AI page and Ask iManage page read 7 September 2026.

The models are the engine of a core capability layered on a product that stands entirely without them. NetDocuments is a cloud document and email management system that has been sold for twenty-five years; the ndMAX suite adds a Legal AI Assistant, AI Search, Tabular Review, an App Builder and a library of ready-to-use legal apps, and Smart Answers, which began rolling out to ndMAX Enterprise customers on 31 March 2026, answers questions from the firm's repository with citations. The vendor's own framing is that it brings AI to the content rather than taking the content to AI, and its press material records that more than 800 firms began using the AI capabilities in 2025 and that over forty per cent of new customers select AI at purchase, which describes an option on a platform rather than the platform. Remove the models and the document management, email management, search, security and collaboration product remains and is what most of the 7,000 organisations bought. Legal AI page, Smart Answers press release of 4 March 2026 and the Software as a Service Agreement read 7 September 2026.

Grounding is real and documented with a described retrieval method, short of any published accuracy figure. The vendor sets out Ask iManage as a three-step process: it interprets intent and context from a natural-language prompt rather than keywords, identifies the most relevant material within iManage Work by relevance and context, and generates a natural-language answer anchored with citations so users can verify the sources. The product page states that answers are backed by citations to the firm's own work, that documents never leave the platform, and, in a comparison against general chatbots, that outputs are grounded rather than hallucinated because the system draws only from real documents. Nothing published measures how often that holds: no accuracy figure, no test set, no evaluation of any kind was located. The hallucination claim therefore stands alongside a described architecture rather than alone, so the bottom limb does not fire, and the missing measurement is what separates this from the top band. Two limbs do not apply to a product that cites the firm's own files rather than reported authority and are named rather than penalised. Ask iManage page, AI page and the January 2026 release coverage read 7 September 2026.

Measured accuracy is published with the test set described and the failure modes named, which no other record located in this index does at this depth. The Legal Context Engineering Benchmark, published 18 August 2026 and authored by the VP of Product, reports quality scores for the vendor's own AI answers out of 100 across three model tiers, 64.0, 67.4 and 73.9 without the Legal Context Graph against 65.1, 69.0 and 75.4 with it, alongside correct-answer counts out of 300 and the cost of a correct answer. The test set is described in full: 300 questions across ten real matters, five transactional and five litigation, assembled from public filings and court dockets falling partly outside the models' training cut-off, 874 documents and roughly sixty million characters, nothing synthetic, with six named question types including an Unanswerable class and a per-question rubric, and citations in answers checked deterministically against the corpus with human spot checks. Failure modes are named rather than buried: a worked example shows the product's own answer failing all three criteria without the context layer and still failing one with it, and the report states how a cost-per-correct-answer figure can be gamed by declining hard questions. The method is published for firms to re-run. Two limbs of the band do not bite and are named: the product answers from the firm's own repository rather than from primary legal authority, so there is no citator, and cited sources are documents the reader already holds. The report is the vendor's own internal benchmark rather than third-party validation, and the appendix PDF with per-matter scorecards was not read. Benchmark report web edition read in full 7 September 2026.

Oversight rests on review surfaces rather than on a published control structure. What exists is real: every answer carries citations the user can open to verify the source, all AI interactions stay inside the governed platform with native enforcement of permissions and information barriers, and the vendor describes the result as explainable and auditable in regulated settings. What is not published is any statement of what the system does without a lawyer, any threshold at which it stops, or what happens after an output is wrong, and the May 2026 playbook analysis release describes the feature applying a firm's positions automatically to every contract review without addressing where review sits in that loop. Ask iManage page, AI page and the January and May 2026 release coverage read 7 September 2026.

Autonomy is described and oversight rests on surfaces rather than on a published control structure. The vendor states that the best AI apps run automatically in the background based on a user's actions in NetDocuments, and its MCP connectivity lets external agents orchestrate workflows across systems, which is a real claim of unattended operation. What exists on the oversight side is genuine but is infrastructure rather than a stated model: answers carry citations a lawyer can open, Exhibit B of the agreement commits to document-level activity logging reviewable for ninety days, administrators control which users and applications reach what through the Customer Service Account, and the benchmark report tells readers to read some of the answers themselves before believing any of the numbers. No located material states that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer, names the threshold at which an app acts without one, or says what happens after an output is wrong. The Our Approach to AI video on the Legal AI page was not viewed and is the rebuttal route. Legal AI page, Smart Answers press release and Exhibit B read 7 September 2026.

Real deployment evidence with substance, split between a measured deployment of the platform and unmeasured statements about the AI. The strongest item is the vendor's own release of 12 June 2025: Rio Tinto's legal function replaced a SharePoint-based system with iManage Work 10, Threat Manager and Share, more than 200 users across Australia, Singapore, the United Kingdom and North America, 4.5 million documents migrated, 80 per cent user engagement within four months of go-live with half the department classified as active users, and a named Digital Transformation Lead quoted. That is named, dated and quantified, but it measures the document management deployment, and the same release records Ask iManage as something the customer is exploring rather than running. For the AI itself the evidence is attributed and unmeasured: the Director of Information Technology at Jones Walker LLP on the January 2026 release, a manager at Rio Tinto in trade press, and a Senior Associate at Simpson Grierson describing a trial on the product page. No figure attaches to an AI outcome and no method is published for the 80 per cent. Rio Tinto release, Ask iManage page and January 2026 coverage read 7 September 2026.

Named customers with a figure, short of dates and a method a reader can assess. The Legal AI page carries an attributed customer statement from Jared Gullbergh of Buchanan that a single AI app was calculated to save over 1,500 hours of work a year while producing better work product, alongside attributed statements from Charly Duffy of Coghlan Duffy on the App Builder and Jeff Sabado, Director of Knowledge Management at Davis Wright Tremaine, that the tools already respect the firm's client and matter based security and ethical walls. Corporate figures are published without attribution to any deployment: more than 7,000 law firms, corporate legal departments and public sector organisations, more than 800 firms beginning to use the AI capabilities in 2025, over forty per cent of new customers selecting AI at purchase, and 150-plus integrations. What separates this from the top band is that no deployment is dated and the basis for the 1,500-hour calculation is not published, so a reader cannot assess how it was reached. Legal AI page, Ethical Walls page and Smart Answers press release read 7 September 2026.

Substantive published commitments across most of the ground, short of the privilege limb the top band names separately. Customer Data is the customer's Confidential Information under section 6.1 and must be safeguarded in perpetuity under 6.3(c)(ii), which is a longer commitment than the five years the agreement gives other confidential information; the customer remains sole owner under 5.2; the AI page states that by default neither iManage nor its third-party model providers use customer data to train or retrain models, that data is encrypted and that iManage does not have access to the underlying content; segregation is documented at the level a firm requires, with Security Policy Manager selling information barriers as a product and the January 2026 release stating that AI interactions carry native enforcement of permissions, information barriers and security policies; retention and deletion are set out in the DPA; and Exhibit B records that each customer's data is logically separated from other customers'. Privilege and work product are not addressed on any surface located, which R33 treats as a required limb rather than a formality, and the training promise is prefaced "by default" with an opt-in whose scope is unpublished. Agreement, DPA and AI pages read 7 September 2026.

Substantive published commitments across most of the ground, short of the privilege limb the A band names separately. What is published and binding: Customer Repository Data is confidential under the agreement and NetDocuments disclaims ownership of it (5.2.1); use is confined to providing the Services, facilitating third-party applications the customer selects, help desk support the customer initiates, and legal demands (5.2.2); ethical walls are a documented product with access controls at user, document and workspace level, and the vendor states the AI operates inside a firm's existing permissions and walls; the ndMAX FAQ states inputs and outputs are not kept beyond producing the answer and are not used to train the model; and the position on the model provider is explicit, including an agreement with Microsoft that keeps customer content out of abuse monitoring. Two things hold it here. Privilege and work product are not addressed anywhere located, which R33 makes a required limb of the A band and not a formality. And the training statement is scoped to the LLM rather than to NetDocuments' own use, which is the narrower promise of the two. Agreement, Legal AI page, App Builder page and Ethical Walls page read 7 September 2026.

No position on the advice line was located, for a product that answers legal questions from a firm's documents, extracts clauses, compares redlines and applies contract playbooks. The Cloud Services Agreement was read in full: it addresses acceptable use, warranties, indemnities and liability and says nothing about advice, competence or supervision, and its warranty disclaimer at 8.5 is a warranty disclaimer rather than a statement of what the product is and is not. The AI and Ask iManage pages carry no disclaimer. The website terms of service are not treated as the product's instrument, following the standing position that a website's terms do not grade the platform. One limb points the right way and is recorded rather than credited: the audience is unambiguous, since the agreement confines use to Authorized Users for the customer's internal business operations and every segment page addresses law firms, corporate legal, compliance and other professional functions, with no consumer surface. This records what is establishable on the date; a product-level acceptable use or AI policy, if one exists behind the trust centre, is the rebuttal route. Surfaces checked 7 September 2026.

No position on the advice line was located on any surface read, for a product whose AI apps analyse NDAs, assess contract risk, produce judge analytics and answer questions about a matter. The Software as a Service Agreement was read in full and addresses use restrictions, AI restrictions binding the customer, warranties and liability without touching advice, competence or supervision; the agreement disclaims that results will meet any requirement (9.4), which is a warranty disclaimer rather than a statement about what the product is and is not. The Legal AI, App Builder and Ethical Walls pages carry no disclaimer. One limb does point the right way and is recorded rather than credited: the audience is unambiguous, since every segment page addresses law firms, corporate legal departments and public sector legal teams, and the agreement confines use to internal business purposes by named Internal and External Users, so there is no consumer-facing surface. This grade records what is establishable on the date rather than a finding that no position exists anywhere; the full text of the Terms of Use, reached only in a search excerpt, is the rebuttal route. Surfaces checked 7 September 2026.

Principles are published without a mechanism a buyer could audit. The AI page states that the platform-based approach enables organisational data to be used securely, responsibly and ethically, whether by iManage or a third party, and the vendor publishes an ESG report and a diversity statement; trade coverage records the appointment of a Vice President of AI Engineering in 2026. Nothing located names who inside iManage is accountable for AI governance, describes what is tested before an AI capability ships, or discloses any finding about uneven output across matter types or populations, and no governance standard such as ISO 42001 was located. The Vanta-hosted trust centre would be the route to more and returns page metadata with no body on this channel, which is recorded as a retrieval limit and named as the rebuttal route rather than counted against the vendor. AI page and trust centre attempted 7 September 2026.

Published substance with an owner and a testing regime, short of a governance framework and any bias disclosure. The Legal Context Engineering Benchmark is a signed technical report by the VP of Product describing what is tested and how, including a testing harness that compares the two tool surfaces before a run and refuses to proceed if they differ in any respect other than the capability under test, deterministic validation that citations map to the corpus, human subject-matter spot checks, and a published method other organisations can apply. The report also discloses its own limits: that it does not yet measure change over a matter's life, that the vendor deliberately withholds its context build cost because it varied roughly sixfold across ten matters and a single figure would mislead, and that the report was drafted with AI assistance. What is absent is the governance half of the axis. No responsible AI framework, policy or standard such as ISO 42001 was located, nobody is named as accountable for AI governance as distinct from authoring the benchmark, and nothing published addresses uneven output across matter types or populations. The unread appendix PDF carries per-matter scorecards and is the route to more. Benchmark report read 7 September 2026.

Retention, deletion, access control, subprocessors and incident practice are all published, current and specific enough to hold the vendor to, and all of it sits in the agreement rather than on a marketing page. The DPA commits to notifying the customer of a Security Incident without undue delay and in any event within 48 hours, with investigation, information in phases, mitigation and assistance with the customer's own notification duties. Deletion is dated: the customer can access, extract and delete Customer Data at any time during the term, iManage retains it for 90 days after expiry so the customer can extract it, then disables the account and deletes within 30 days, certifying where law requires, with backups overwritten in the ordinary course and never held beyond 90 days. Exhibit B carries AES-256 encryption at rest, encrypted transit and backups, least-privilege access with unique usernames that are never recycled, lockout on repeated failures, monthly vulnerability testing, annual independent assessment against ISO 27001 and ISO 27017, annual third-party penetration testing, Tier 3 or better data centres and logical separation of each customer's data. Subprocessors are the limb most vendors miss and the one iManage publishes: a maintained list, 60 days' advance notice before a new subprocessor touches customer data, a 30-day objection right, four named cure routes and a termination remedy with pro-rata refund if the objection is not resolved. Agreement, Exhibit B and DPA read in full 7 September 2026; the subprocessor list itself refuses automated access and was read through the search index.

Substantive published policy covering most of the ground in a binding exhibit, short of a named subprocessor list. Exhibit B of the Software as a Service Agreement commits NetDocuments to report confirmed Unauthorized Access to the customer without unreasonable delay and within 24 hours, with root cause analysis and a mitigation plan; to encrypt Customer Repository Data in transit and at rest; to least-privilege access with removal on termination of employment; to independent penetration tests at least twice per twelve months and monthly internal and external vulnerability scanning; to document-level and administrative activity logs reviewable by the customer for ninety days with NetDocuments retaining log information for at least a year; to storage across two or more geographically separate data centres; and to disaster recovery targets of a two-hour recovery point and six-hour recovery time. Deletion is governed by the agreement at 7.4, with the customer responsible for export and NetDocuments free to destroy remaining data thirty days after the term. The gap is subprocessors: section 12.2 permits Common Subcontractors and promises Digital Notice of material changes and additions without publishing who they are, and the only named processor anywhere is Microsoft for the AI. Agreement, Exhibit B and Legal AI page read 7 September 2026.

What the vendor stands behind is published and specific, and in one respect it is better than the corpus norm. Section 9.1 gives a defence and indemnity against third-party claims that the Services infringe intellectual property rights, with three named exclusions, and 9.4 sets out the mitigation ladder of procuring the right, modifying or replacing the service, or terminating with a refund of the prepaid balance. Section 10.2 caps each party at the greater of twelve months' fees or fifty thousand US dollars, so a small customer has a floor rather than a cap equal to a small invoice, which is unusual in this corpus. Section 10.1 excludes consequential loss for both parties, and 10.3 lifts both the exclusion and the cap for fraud, for the indemnities, for negligence causing death or personal injury and for wilful misconduct. Section 8.3 warrants performance by qualified personnel to industry standards, that the Cloud Services are free of harmful code, and that they will perform substantially in accordance with the documentation. Exhibit A adds a 99.9 per cent availability commitment with a published service credit schedule and a right to terminate where availability falls below 99.0 per cent in three months of any six. No insurance is stated, and nothing addresses liability for a wrong AI output specifically. Agreement read in full 7 September 2026.

What the vendor stands behind is published and specific. Section 11.1 of the Software as a Service Agreement gives a defence and indemnity against third-party claims that the Services infringe intellectual property rights, with three named exclusions and modify, licence or terminate remedies at 11.3.3; section 10.3 caps each party at the annualised subscription fee paid or payable at the time of the event, with the indemnity obligations carved out of the cap; 10.1 excludes indirect and consequential loss; 10.4 preserves liability for death or personal injury caused by negligence and for fraud; 9.2 warrants that the Services will be performed with the care and skill of a professional and competent provider; and Exhibit A publishes a 99.9 per cent availability target with a graduated service credit schedule that functions as an agreed remedy. No insurance is stated. One asymmetry a buyer should read before signing, recorded here because it is what the agreement says rather than because it moves the grade: section 10.1 removes every liability limitation for the customer's breach of the AI Restrictions in section 3.5, so NetDocuments may recover lost profits, lost business opportunity, lost competitive advantage and all indirect and consequential damages without cap, while the customer's own recovery remains capped at one year of fees. Agreement read in full 7 September 2026.

Real integrations are named and their boundary is described, short of an implementer's account of what moves in which direction. The vendor publishes a Microsoft partnership page and describes a plug-in connecting Microsoft 365 with iManage while keeping the repository as the single source of truth, sells a Model Context Protocol connection as an open standard that lets AI and legal technology tools reach iManage content without custom connectors, and states in the January 2026 release that the same underlying AI services expose content to third-party applications through MCP with permissions and information barriers enforced and content never leaving the platform. Access software (ndOffice equivalents, mobility clients) is defined in the agreement, and the Rio Tinto release describes API integration between iManage and that customer's own digital legal hub with iManage as the core content layer. The agreement is candid that third-party products and any data transfer to them are between the customer and that provider, with no iManage warranty. What is not published on the surfaces read is per-integration depth; the MCP product page and partner directory were not read and are the route to more. Agreement, AI pages, MCP references and Rio Tinto release read 7 September 2026.

Real, documented integrations named across the systems legal work lives in, short of an implementer's description of what moves in which direction. The vendor states the platform integrates with more than 150 technologies including Microsoft 365, Teams and DocuSign, publishes an App Directory and partner locator, and ships ndOffice and mobile access software defined in the agreement. The 2026 additions are the substantive part: Model Context Protocol connectivity lets external AI applications and agents reach NetDocuments content and orchestrate workflows without file downloads or manual transfers, with the vendor naming ChatGPT, Claude, Claude Cowork and its legal plugin, Microsoft Copilot, Perplexity, Google Gemini Enterprise, Harvey and Legora, and stating the boundary that this operates within existing permissions, ethical walls and audit controls with no content leaving the platform. The agreement describes what a firm must do for the API: it is not included in the subscription, access is granted on request after registering an application, it may not be shared, and further terms may be imposed. What is not published on the surfaces read is per-integration depth, which lives in the unread App Directory and support documentation. Smart Answers press release, agreement section 4.4 and Legal AI pages read 7 September 2026.

The deployment model is stated clearly with partial residency detail, and the processing question is answered with unusual candour. Region is a defined term in the SLA, availability is measured and credited per region, and DPA 12.4 states that all Customer Data is stored in the geographic region set out in the applicable Order. The same clause then discloses what most vendors leave unsaid: iManage may provide the Services from regions other than the one in the Order, naming the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and India, so iManage personnel in those locations may have access to Customer Data, and DPA 12.1 warns that this applies even where the customer has agreed to hosting in the EEA or the United Kingdom. Transfers out of the EEA and UK run on the 2021 Standard Contractual Clauses with the UK Addendum, incorporated by reference in Schedule 1. Tenancy is addressed in Exhibit B as logical separation of each customer's data. What is not published on the surfaces read is the list of regions a buyer can actually choose from, which sits behind the Order and on the unread Cloud page; the AI adds a further constraint the vendor states plainly, that iManage AI runs only on the cloudimanage.com endpoint. Agreement, DPA and AI page read 7 September 2026.

Deployment options and residency are published and contractual, and processing is addressed separately from storage. Services Region is a defined term in the Software as a Service Agreement, and section 2.4 commits NetDocuments to store Customer Repository Data in the region specified on the Order Form and not to transfer or access it except at the customer's or a user's direction or as required by law, with sharing and out-of-region user access carved out where the customer configures it. Five regional entry points are published on the site: United States, United Kingdom, Germany, Australia and Canada, and the contracting entity itself follows the region. Tenancy is stated as the customer's private repository on the ND Network, and Customer Managed Storage Locations using ndFlexStore or ndMirror let a customer hold repository data on servers NetDocuments does not host, which is the tier difference described. The processing limb is met expressly and against the vendor's interest: section 4.2 records that help desk support may be provided by personnel or subcontractors in regions other than the customer's Service Region and requires the customer to say so in advance if its policies or law restrict that. One thing a buyer should ask about is not published: where Azure OpenAI inference runs for a customer in a given region. Agreement and site region list read 7 September 2026.

Certification is real and contractually committed, short of evidence a buyer can reach without asking. Exhibit B binds iManage to adhere to information security practices at least as protective as ISO 27001 and ISO 27017 or equivalent standards, to have an independent third party assess those standards annually, to undergo annual independent penetration testing, and to maintain a business continuity plan compliant with ISO 22301. The route to proof is stated and gated: on request, not more than once a calendar year and subject to the agreement's confidentiality terms, iManage will make available its ISO 27001 certification and SOC 2 or SOC 3 reports; a customer may also commission its own audit once a year, at its own cost, through an accredited firm on twenty days' notice. No auditor, certificate number, audit period or report date was located, and the trust centre at compliance.imanage.com is a Vanta-hosted portal that returns page metadata with no body on this channel, so whether anything there is self-serve could not be established. That is recorded as a retrieval limit and the portal is the rebuttal route; the lower tier is graded with the reason stated. Exhibit B read in full and trust centre attempted 7 September 2026.

Certification is real, named and contractually committed, short of evidence this channel could reach. Exhibit B of the Software as a Service Agreement commits NetDocuments to have a Type 2 SOC 2 audit for security, availability and privacy undertaken annually and to maintain ISO 27001 certification or a comparable successor, states that all data centres fall within the scope of the annual ISO 27001 audit, and records that the listed controls are verified in both. That is a named scope and a stated cadence carried in a binding instrument rather than a badge, which is more than most records on this axis have. What is missing is the accessible half: no auditor, no audit period and no report date were located, and the trust website named in the agreement, trust.netdocuments.com, is a TrustShare portal that returns a JavaScript shell with no body on this channel, so whether its Due Diligence Response material is self-serve or sales-gated could not be established. Recorded as a retrieval limit rather than as an absence, with the trust site as the rebuttal route; under the standing convention the lower tier is graded and the reason stated. Agreement Exhibit B read in full and trust site attempted 7 September 2026.

The architecture is described and change notification is contractual; the model providers themselves are never named. What is published: AI processing stays on the iManage platform with content not moved outside it, the AI is available only on the cloudimanage.com endpoint, the subprocessor list names Microsoft Corporation (Azure), and the DPA commits to 60 days' advance notice before any new subprocessor touches customer data with an objection right and a termination remedy, which is a stronger change-notice mechanism than most records in this corpus carry. What is absent is the identity of whose models run: the AI page refers throughout to "our third-party model providers" without naming one, no model is named anywhere, and naming Azure identifies where processing happens rather than whose model it is. The Microsoft relationship is described in product terms, a Copilot plug-in and AI Services feeding Copilot, which is a different fact from the provider of the models behind Ask iManage. The B is earned on the architecture limb rather than the provider limb, and the gap is the one a client's AI clause asks about. AI page, agreement, DPA and subprocessor list (via search index) read 7 September 2026.

The provider is named and the architecture described; the models are not named and change notice is reserved rather than committed. The Legal AI page states that ndMAX is powered by Microsoft Cognitive Services and Azure OpenAI and their suite of OpenAI models, that only inputs and outputs are shared with the LLM, that they are not kept beyond the exchange, and that an agreement with Microsoft prevents customer content from triggering Microsoft's abuse monitoring. The same FAQ reserves the right to change what sits underneath: the solutions are described as model agnostic, so that if better models are developed they may be used, and new models are tested internally and made available as they appear. No specific model is named, no inference location is stated, and the only change-notification machinery located is the general Digital Notice of material changes to Common Subcontractors at section 12.2 of the agreement, which is not a commitment about models. One fact is deliberately not counted here: the MCP connectivity that lets a firm's own ChatGPT, Claude, Copilot or Harvey reach NetDocuments content is the customer's model choice reaching the vendor, which is extensibility and is credited on the integration axis instead. Legal AI page and agreement read 7 September 2026.

The shape of the charge is visible and the number is not. Every path on the site ends at Book a Demo, and no price, band or unit figure appears on any page read. What is published is structure. The AI FAQ states that Mailbox Assistant, AI Services and Ask iManage are not included in a standard cloud subscription and must be purchased as additional products, which tells a buyer that AI is a separate line before any conversation. The product catalogue splits the platform into named modules a buyer can map to a quote. The agreement adds the mechanics: fees are set in the Order in a named currency, orders are non-cancellable and payments non-refundable, each order renews automatically for one-year terms unless either party gives 30 days' notice, late payment accrues 1.5 per cent per month, disputed fees must be raised within 30 days, and the SLA sets service credits as a percentage of one twelfth of the annual subscription fee. Section 3.2 confirms the licence is per-user by prohibiting multiple users sharing a per-user feature. Fees may also be set by a Partner rather than by iManage, which a buyer purchasing through a reseller should read. No VendorPricing row is written, since a row belongs to vendors graded A or B on this axis. Agreement and site read 7 September 2026.

The shape of the charge is published and no number is, at any tier. Every purchase path on the site ends at Contact Sales or a demo request, and no price, band or unit figure appears on any page read. What lifts this off the floor sits in the published agreement rather than on a pricing page: fees are set in an Order Form as recurring Subscription Fees with a Billing Commencement Date, section 4.2 records that a customer exceeding the End User, lawyer, document or other licence metrics stated in the Order Form is invoiced for the overage, section 4.4 caps annual increases at CPI plus five per cent no more than once a year, section 8.1 requires disputed invoices to be raised within thirty days, and Exhibit A sets out service credits as a proportion of the annualised fee. Tier names are visible in the product material, with ndMAX Enterprise identified as the tier receiving Smart Answers and expanded MCP connectivity. So a buyer can learn the unit, the escalation ceiling and the tier structure before a sales call, and cannot learn the price. No VendorPricing row is written: under the pull 7 convention a row belongs to vendors graded A or B on this axis and the grade speaks for the rest. Agreement and site read 7 September 2026.

Segment coverage is described with real substance and the boundaries are left open. The site publishes separate pages for global, midsize and small law firms and for financial services, accounting, government, media and entertainment and other knowledge workers, alongside department pages for corporate legal, compliance, finance, human resources and knowledge management, and the customer evidence spans both a US law firm and a global corporate legal department. Practice coverage is described through the work the AI does rather than by practice area: repository-wide question answering, clause extraction, redline comparison, summarisation, structuring results into tables by attributes such as judges and jurisdictions, and applying a corporate legal team's contract playbook, with transaction work covered by Closing Folders. Nothing published states what is not supported: no practice area, jurisdiction or language is named as out of scope, and the one real limit the vendor does state is technical rather than practice-based, that AI capabilities exist only on the cloudimanage.com endpoint and that customers are still being migrated there. Segment pages, Ask iManage page and release coverage read 7 September 2026.

Segment coverage is described with unusual precision, and the boundaries are left open. The site publishes separate pages for small, midsize and large law firms, corporations, in-house legal departments, public sector, federal government, and state, local government and higher education, plus regional pages for Asia, Australia and New Zealand, North America, South America, and the UK and Europe, and the vendor states it supports more than 7,000 law firms, corporate legal departments and public sector organisations. Practice coverage is described through the work rather than by area: the ndMAX Studio library covers automatic profiling, NDA analysis, contract risk analysis, playbook creation and application, deposition preparation, judge analytics, offer letter workflows and translation, and the benchmark corpus is split evenly between transactional and litigation matters, which is the closest thing to a statement of where the AI has been tested. Nothing published states what is not supported: no practice area, jurisdiction or language is named as out of scope, and the eDOCS line for on-premises customers is presented without a boundary against the cloud product. Site segment pages, ndMAX Studio, Legal AI page and benchmark report read 7 September 2026.