Leah vs Legartis: how they compare in 2026

Leah sells AI agents and an orchestration layer that sit on top of a contract lifecycle platform, and that platform works without them. The vendor describes it the other way round. It says other vendors bolted AI onto systems built for manual workflows, while Leah was designed from scratch with orchestration as the foundation. ContractPod Technologies has sold contract lifecycle management since 2012. Leah launched in March 2023 as an AI services hub within that platform, went standalone in May 2023, and Leah Intelligence followed in October 2024. Without the agents, the product is still a working CLM with guided intake, approval routing, DocuSign and Adobe Sign execution and a contract repository. That CLM has its own market and its own Gartner category placement. The orchestration layer on top is model driven.

Legartis sells the product as a Legal AI Workspace built on an agentic framework. Its named components are the Review Agent, the Legal Agent and the Playbook Creator Agent, and every capability a customer pays for runs through these agents. Since agentic workflows launched on 23 September 2026, the Legal Agent takes on complete legal processes, from incoming requests and contract review to negotiation, approvals, reporting and signature. The pricing page also lists e signature via DocuSign and a contract repository with status and versions. Workflows can be created by voice or in writing and reused across the workspace. Procurement and sales teams work in their own Focus Spaces, under rules and templates legal has approved.

Leah returns to accuracy repeatedly in its materials, and the AI governance page says every action is measured against benchmarks for accuracy, bias and outcome. Neither that page nor the home page publishes a result from that measurement. They give no accuracy figure, no error or hallucination rate, no description of any benchmark or test set and no published evaluation. The product material describes a legal helpdesk that answers contract questions with sources attached, so a user can in principle check an answer against its source. Neither page says what the system does when the customer's own contracts do not support a position.

The AI Quality System page says the AI works against legally validated requirements rather than free prompts, and that legal experts rather than the algorithm define what counts as correct. Each requirement in a playbook gets its own AI Quality Score from test sets. Detection of clauses outside expected patterns is described as catching clauses even where the playbook does not define them. In its FAQ, Legartis names four error types it says occur most often, and calls hallucination particularly critical because it occurs unpredictably. Legartis publishes no accuracy figure that an outsider can test. The AI Quality Scores work inside the product for each customer rather than as a published, measured result, and the test sets are named but not described. The 85 percent figure quoted throughout the site is a speed claim, not an accuracy one. Grounding to primary authority does not apply to a contract review product.

Leah's dedicated AI governance page sets out a three stage control loop. In the first stage, policy in, the customer defines which agents may act, on which data, within which thresholds and where escalation is required. Those policies are held as configuration rather than code. In the second, execution governed, every agent action runs through those policies in real time. Approvals, escalations and rejections are applied automatically, and the orchestrator enforces guardrails at each step. In the third, audit out, every decision is logged with the rationale, what the agent did, why, under which policy, on what data and to what outcome. The records are described as tamper resistant and immutable. The loop sets the thresholds, the review points and the route back to human judgment. Leah's home page puts the position in one line, that the workflow runs itself while the judgment stays human. The page does not say what happens after an output is found to be wrong. Default modes are not described, because the customer configures the guardrails rather than receiving them preset.

The system works against legally validated requirements and company playbooks, and legal experts rather than the model define what counts as correct. Legartis names four review tools. AI Quality Scores for each requirement appear in a dashboard, and in test sets the user reviews and corrects how the system understood a requirement. Detection of clauses outside expected patterns and a full audit trail complete the set. It states twice that judgment returns to a person. A human is the final checkpoint before any decision is made on an AI classification, and accountability stays with the organization, not the AI, when agents draft, review or flag clauses. The path for a misclassification is documented end to end, from detection through correction in the test set to the system applying that correction to similar cases. Since the agentic workflows launched on 23 September 2026, legal teams set the playbooks, templates, responsibilities and decision boundaries the Legal Agent follows. When a deviation exceeds a boundary, such as a liability clause outside the agreed position, the agent refers it to the responsible person for a decision. Legartis publishes no default boundary, and each customer sets its own.

Leah publishes qualitative quotes from four named people. Noelle Perkins is EVP and Chief Legal Officer at Cushman and Wakefield, and Lidia Kamleh is Chief Legal Officer at Dubai Future Foundation. Frances Bain-Cumberbatch is Chief Legal and External Affairs Officer at Ansa McAL, and Zillia Knight is Senior Legal Officer at Terumo Europe. Three results are published with the customer unnamed. A major American logistics company cut contract review time by 91 percent. A global manufacturer protected more than $18 million of revenue, and an American retail REIT tracked more than $2 million of savings. About 54 enterprise logos appear, including Philips, MUFG, Sandoz, Pernod Ricard, Alaska Airlines and Wood PLC. PwC and KPMG appear among them. PwC entered a commercial alliance in March 2024, and Epiq resells Leah in its Service Cloud. Integreon is quoted as an early adopter that resells it, and Pinsent Masons adopted it for managed legal services in July 2025. Partners and customers are shown together without distinction, and the Chief Product Officer of Execo, another services partner, is among the testimonials.

Two customers, dormakaba and TUEV NORD, have dedicated case study pages. Seven more appear as logos (Uniklinik, Emmi, Fiege, Oechsler, Framatome, Zuercher Kantonalbank and Arabelle Solutions). Legartis cites a DPA first review falling from 45 to 60 minutes to under 10, and contract review up to 85 percent faster. It also cites playbook creation effort down up to 98 percent and costs down more than 90 percent on portfolio risk analysis. Testimonials carry personal names, including Kim Weiler, Dr Marc Hansmann, Cedric Ruepp, Gordian Berger and Juerg Sommer. The testimonials do not give these individuals' organizations, so the figures they quote are not tied to a named customer.

Leah says customer contract data is never used to train models. The AI governance page treats data leaking into models the customer does not own as a failure it engineered out. It says zero data retention is the only acceptable answer, and that Leah enforces zero retention with OpenAI and Anthropic so they process data but never store it. Encryption is AES-256 at rest and TLS in transit, with keys in Azure Key Vault, rotated and reachable only through controlled service accounts. Role based access control is said to apply at every layer, and single tenant deployment is offered for customers with strict isolation needs. Leah sells to Fortune 500 legal departments, and none of this material addresses privilege or work product.

The home page and pricing page state no data sharing with third parties, GDPR compliance, ISO 27001 certification and hosting in Switzerland and Europe. The pricing page uses the narrower phrase no uncontrolled data sharing. The only published data document is a privacy policy last updated 6 November 2019. It addresses website and account data and does not address uploaded contracts, prompts or outputs. On training, the only published statements are on the pricing pages, which offer exclusion of the customer's data from model training on the Team and Enterprise plans only. Legartis does not address segregation between customers or between matters, states no retention or deletion position for contract content, and identifies no model provider. Its published materials do not mention privilege, professional secrecy or work product.

Leah publishes nothing on the line between a tool and legal advice. Its site carries no disclaimer of any kind and no ethics or professional responsibility page, and it names no bar or ethics guidance, including ABA Formal Opinion 512. The platform is sold to run legal work end to end across legal, procurement and finance teams. In the vendor's own framing, agents carry out commercial work in several steps without routing every decision through a person.

Asked in its FAQ who is liable if the AI makes a mistake, Legartis answers that when a lawyer sends a signed document it makes no difference how it was created. The lawyer remains liable, the AI is an assistive tool, and legal responsibility stays with the person who approves the result. A companion answer says accountability stays with the organization rather than the AI. Both positions sit in FAQ prose rather than in an agreement. No jurisdiction limit is stated, although the product is sold across every European language and legal system. Legartis also invites people who are not lawyers to work in the product. A dedicated FAQ confirms that procurement and sales teams review contracts on their own in line with legal standards. No statement on scope of use for those users is published.

A dedicated AI governance page names six failure modes the vendor says it engineered out. They include black box decisions that cannot be defended to a regulator or board, and compliance frameworks retrofitted after the fact. Against them the page sets three pillars and a loop of policy, execution and audit. Each action is logged with its rationale and governing policy, in records described as tamper resistant and immutable. The page also says every action is measured against benchmarks for accuracy, bias and outcome, and that accountability is structural rather than aspirational. It names no person or role accountable for model behavior and describes no testing before release. It gives no benchmark method or schedule and discloses no bias measurement result.

Legartis sets out its AI Quality System as three named layers, each with a described mechanism. Playbooks and Legal Best Practices with Agent Memory form the knowledge base, AI Quality Scores come with feedback loops and targeted user tuning, and clauses outside expected patterns are detected. Three published articles cover auditable AI, explainable AI and governing agentic legal AI. Legartis distinguishes explainable AI, which shows how a decision was reached, from auditable AI, which checks whether output meets a defined standard. Nobody inside Legartis is named as accountable for AI governance, no testing regime before release is described, and no testing results are published. Nothing is published about uneven output across matter types or populations, although bias appears in a section heading. ISO 27001 is a security management standard and does not cover AI governance.

The AI governance page describes TLS in transit and AES-256 at rest. Encryption keys are managed in Azure Key Vault, rotated regularly and reachable only through tightly controlled service accounts. The page also lists multifactor authentication, secure API gateways, network segmentation, real time monitoring and a documented incident response plan. Audit logs are described as comprehensive, tamper resistant and immutable. For outside assurance, the vendor says an independent Managed Security Service Provider audits it every year and that it is penetration tested regularly.

Data handling is governed by a privacy policy last updated 6 November 2019. It covers website and account data and does not address what happens to uploaded contracts, prompts or generated output after processing. Its retention section speaks generally, saying aggregated, anonymized or pseudonymized information may be kept indefinitely, and states no retention period for contract content. No deletion position or incident and breach practice is published. The policy names Turicode, VSHN and LinuxFabrik as third party processors for Application users. All three are Swiss infrastructure and operations suppliers, and no AI model provider is among them. Access control appears only as paid features in the pricing matrix, with advanced role management, document level permissions and audit logs reserved to Enterprise. Personal data is stated to be stored on servers in Zurich.

Section 16.5 of the Master Terms and Annexes sets a General Cap equal to fees paid or payable in the twelve months before the first incident. An Enhanced Cap of three times that applies to breaches of its security or data protection terms, meaning the security clause and the data processing addendum. Indemnities, intellectual property claims, breach of confidentiality and anything that cannot legally be limited are uncapped. Section 17.1 gives the customer an indemnity against third party intellectual property claims. Section 8.2 warrants that the service will perform materially as documented, with a thirty day fix period under 8.3 and termination with a refund if the fix fails. Annex A publishes uptime tiers of 99.00, 99.5 and 99.9 percent by support plan. A tier missed in three consecutive months, or in four months out of six, allows termination with a refund. Three limits apply. Breaches of confidentiality involving Customer Data fall outside the uncapped claim, so they stay capped and rise to the Enhanced Cap only where the security or data protection terms are also breached. The agreement gives no indemnity for AI output, such as inaccurate output, hallucination or training data provenance. Section 9.2 bars the customer from submitting Sensitive Data, including GDPR Article 9 categories, and the provider disclaims liability for it. These terms are version 3.0c. Version 4.0, dated 4 January 2026, changes only the trading name, according to the vendor.

The legal section of the site footer offers two documents, a legal notice and a privacy policy, and neither is a contract for the service. Legartis publishes no customer agreement. The legal notice is a website disclaimer. It disclaims the accuracy of information on the website, excludes liability for losses from using that information, and puts reliance at the user's own risk. It governs the website rather than the Application. No indemnity, liability cap, warranty on the service or its output, or insurance position is published. On who bears the loss, the only statement is an FAQ answer on the AI Quality System page. It says the lawyer who signs remains liable and accountability stays with the organization. That answer is marketing prose that puts risk on the customer, and it is not a contractual term binding Legartis.

Leah names its integrations and describes each by function. They cover ERP platforms including SAP and NetSuite, procurement systems including Coupa, financial systems, identity providers including Okta, and existing contract lifecycle tools. DocuSign and Adobe Sign are built in for signing, and a Microsoft Word add in handles redlining. The vendor also describes how the integrations work. It says Leah connects and executes rather than copying data passively, and carries out work across connected systems through the orchestration layer. Leah has a dedicated integrations page, but publishes nothing on what syncs in which direction or what a customer must configure. No document management integration such as iManage or NetDocuments appears, which fits a product built for in house teams rather than law firms.

The Word add in is the main integration, and customers on Microsoft Office 2019 or Office 365 can install the Legartis Word app. An open REST API is described as letting Legartis run as a standalone web app alongside any contract management solution. The pricing matrix lists API and MCP integrations on all paid tiers, with custom integrations reserved to Enterprise. Legartis has no integrations page or developer documentation, and does not describe what moves between systems or in which direction. The pricing page now lists e signature via DocuSign, and the Team to Enterprise plan adds SSO.

The standard deployment is shared. Single tenant deployment is available for customers with strict isolation requirements. The vendor also offers what it calls a dedicated zero trust private environment in Azure OpenAI Studio, described as fully isolating data from all other customers. Leah runs on Azure, with keys held in Azure Key Vault. On data residency the vendor says only that it supports the residency and regulatory needs typical of large multinational enterprises. It names no region or jurisdiction and describes no customer choice.

Legartis states on its product and pricing pages that hosting is in Switzerland and Europe, and the arrangement is the same on every tier. The privacy policy says personal data is stored on servers in Zurich. Processing location is not addressed separately from storage. No model provider is named, so where inference runs is not stated. Legartis does not say whether the platform is single tenant or multitenant, or how customers are separated. The only related detail is document level permissions, offered as an Enterprise feature. No deployment option varies the hosting arrangement.

The AI governance page claims SOC 1 Type I and II, SOC 2 Type I and II, GDPR compliance, CCPA compliance, HIPAA readiness and ISO 27001 alignment. The home page FAQ, on the same site, says only that Leah is SOC 2 Type II certified, so the two pages disagree on what is held. For ISO 27001 and HIPAA the governance page says aligned and ready rather than certified. The auditor is described only as an independent Managed Security Service Provider, a category rather than a named firm. No coverage period, report date or audit scope is given. Penetration testing is said to be regular, with no partner named and no summary published. Leah has no trust center or portal, so there is no published route to request a report.

Legartis states that it holds ISO 27001 certification. The claim appears in the home page trust block, the security section of the AI Quality System page, all four tiers of the pricing matrix and a badge in the site footer. No certifying body, certificate number, scope statement or statement of applicability, or issue or expiry date is published. Legartis has no trust center or portal, and offers no route to obtain a report at any access tier. With no certifying body named, the claim cannot be matched to a register without contacting Legartis. No penetration testing is mentioned.

The DPA Setup Page lists four model providers against Leah Functionality, each noted as storing or retaining no customer data and each with named jurisdictions. Anthropic PBC is listed for the USA, Japan, and the EU or UK, and OpenAI LLC for the USA, Japan, and the EU or Switzerland. Cohere Inc. is listed for Canada, the USA, the EU or UK, and Japan. Google AI/ML with Google Cloud is listed for the USA, Japan, and the EU, Switzerland or UK. Microsoft Azure Services is listed for hosting and translation, and the private deployment option runs in Azure OpenAI Studio. DPA clause 4.3 requires any new subprocessor to be added to the published list with at least thirty days' notice before it processes customer personal data. Clause 4.4 gives a thirty day objection right on reasonable data protection grounds. If the objection is not resolved, the affected order can be terminated with a refund of prepaid unused fees. No model or version is named for any provider. The platform is described as choosing among several language models for each task and letting customers extend or customize models. Nothing published shows which provider handled a given piece of work.

Legartis describes its own agentic AI framework and does not identify the models underneath it. Its marketing distinguishes that framework from generic language model output and contrasts Legartis with ChatGPT, which implies third party models are in use without naming one. No model or model provider is named, and no notice of change is committed. The third party processors published for Application users, Turicode, VSHN and LinuxFabrik, are Swiss infrastructure and operations suppliers, not model providers. Where inference runs is not stated. Hosting in Switzerland and Europe describes where the platform sits. The pricing matrix offers an opt out of model training on the two upper tiers, which indicates that model training takes place.

Leah publishes no pricing at any level, including the unit of charge. The primary navigation covers platform, solutions, resources and company, and neither it nor the footer sitemap has a pricing page. There is no tier structure, no unit per seat, contract or agent, no volume banding and no indication of what implementation adds. Every call to action across the site is to request a demo. An implementation FAQ says timelines vary with scope and integrations and that a detailed plan is built during evaluation. It says nothing about cost. No published page gives a view of price before a sales process.

Legartis prices on two levels. The pricing page linked from its navigation shows two plans. Free covers one seat and two NDA reviews a month, and Team to Enterprise is priced on request and adds SSO, role management, audit logs and exclusion of the customer's data from model training. A separate plans page lists four plans with rates and volume entitlements. Professional is CHF 2,500 or 2,500 euro per user per year excluding VAT, covering 120 contracts a year from one seat. Team is CHF 3,000 or 3,000 euro per user per year, covering 250 contracts a year from five seats. Enterprise has custom pricing for 500 or more contracts a year from ten seats. A full feature matrix runs across the tiers, and the FAQ on that page restates the numbers. Prices are given in Swiss francs and euros, and Free and Professional can be bought without contacting anyone. An older page at legartis.ai/pricing still lists monthly euro plans for one user, Basic Best Practice at €249 a month for five contracts and Advanced Best Practice at €399 a month for ten. Implementation extras are named but not priced. Additional reviews, seats, custom playbooks, custom dashboards and Best Practice Playbooks for NDA, DPA, SaaS, purchase and commercial lease agreements are each listed On request.

Leah publishes dedicated industry pages for CPG and manufacturing, energy and utilities, financial services, healthcare, and pharma and medical devices. It describes its customers as Fortune 500 enterprises in regulated industries. By function it publishes pages for legal leadership, legal operations, sales and revenue, procurement, and finance. The pages carry distinct propositions written for the General Counsel, the contract operations team, the Chief Procurement Officer and the finance leader. The customer roster spans banking, airlines, pharmaceuticals, consumer goods and engineering. No published page says which practice areas, contract types or matters the platform does not support, and none addresses smaller organizations. Law firms appear only indirectly, through managed service partners, rather than as a served segment.

The buyer Legartis describes is the legal department and the procurement and sales teams around it, each with a dedicated page, plus a construction industry page. Law firms are neither claimed nor excluded. Best Practice Playbooks are published for NDA, DPA, SaaS agreement, purchase agreement and commercial lease agreement. Paid tiers cover all contract types, and the free tier covers NDA only. Twelve industries are listed. Language coverage is set per tier, with German, English and French on Free and all European languages on paid plans. Coverage is claimed for companies of any size and industry. Government use is not addressed, and nothing says where the product stops.