Leah vs Sirion: 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.

Sirion's contract lifecycle platform came before its AI, and the company has traded since 2012. The product is organized as Store, Create and Manage, covering repository, drafting, approval, negotiation, obligation tracking and performance management. Without the agents and agentOS, a working enterprise CLM remains, and Gartner classifies it as one. The models drive the capability Sirion now sells on top of it. Agents are described as extracting and normalizing contracts, assembling first drafts from a playbook, proposing redlines on the other side's paper and monitoring obligations. Customers can also build and deploy their own agents in agentOS.

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.

A specific grounding claim runs through Sirion's material. Answers are described as carrying citations linked to the customer's own data, and vendor material states that every AI generated response includes citations linked to exact sources, with citation and justification at clause level. Five percentage figures are published prominently, and each measures speed or coverage rather than correctness. They are 90 percent faster centralization, 85 percent faster insights, up to 90 percent faster time to contract, 99 percent on time obligation compliance and 70 percent faster agentic automation. The home page and the trust center, with its AI ethics, compliance and security sections, give no accuracy figure, error or hallucination rate, test set or published evaluation. They do not say what the system does when the customer's contract set does not support an answer.

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.

Agents are said to sense intent, reason over enterprise data and act autonomously. They draft and propose redlines, monitor obligations, surface gaps, alert owners and drive follow through. Sirion's one published statement on oversight is that the user stays in control for strategic exceptions. Its published material does not say what an agent completes without a human, the point at which it stops and escalates, where review happens, or what happens after an output is wrong. Customers can build, test and deploy agents in agentOS, which suggests guardrails can be configured, though no control structure is documented.

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.

Three customer representatives speak on the record with their roles and employers. Edzard Janssen is Chief Procurement Officer at RBI. Reinhard Plaza-Bartsch is Head of Digital Supply Chain and Operations at Vodafone. Angella Dikmic is Manager of IT Vendor Management at GTAA. All three quotes are qualitative, and all three people work in procurement or vendor management rather than legal. The five percentage claims name no customer and read as product capabilities, so named customers and published figures are never paired. About 25 enterprise logos appear, including Citi, GE, Coca-Cola, Chevron, PayPal, Bayer, Rolls-Royce, Aramco, Yamaha, DP World and Zalando. Customers are in more than 70 countries, with more than $450 billion of contract value under management. Sirion also publishes a case study library.

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.

Vendor library articles say customer data stays within the customer environment and is not used to train external language models. Clause 4.2 of the SaaS Terms, version 6, modified 26 August 2026, says otherwise. It reserves a right for Sirion to have its automated systems review and process Customer Data to generally inform machine learning capabilities in the services. None of the published agreements offers an opt out, and the agreement, not the library articles, is what binds. The rest of the confidentiality framework is published and can be read before signing. The data processing addendum stores and processes all customer data in a Sirion application instance specific to the customer. It sets Article 32 technical and organizational measures, with AES-256 at rest and TLS 1.2 in transit. It imposes need to know and least privilege access with automatic logout, requires deletion within 30 days of termination, and commits to notifying the customer of a confirmed security incident within 72 hours. Section 5 of the SaaS Terms adds mutual confidentiality, with a duty to give prior notice of any authority or court demand so the other party can object. The published agreements and trust center do not address privilege 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.

The platform is sold to procurement, sales and finance teams as well as in house legal, all working on the same contracts. The three customer referees Sirion features are procurement and vendor management leaders, not lawyers. The home page, the trust center index with its AI ethics, compliance and security sections, and the terms and policies index say nothing on where tooling ends and legal advice begins. There is no statement that Sirion does not give legal advice, no professional responsibility or ethics page, no named bar or ethics guidance, including ABA Formal Opinion 512, and no jurisdiction limits.

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.

The trust center has a section titled Artificial Intelligence Ethics and Governance, last modified 16 December 2025, and its whole content is three sentences. They say Sirion has set up an AI Governance Program called S-AIGP, which monitors and ensures compliance with the EU AI Act 2024/1689 and other AI regulations as they emerge. Readers are told to contact their Sirion Account Executive for more. Sirion publishes nothing on who owns model behavior, what is tested before release, how the program works, or bias and uneven output.

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.

The data processing addendum, version 3, modified 2 July 2026, covers retention, access, subprocessors, incidents and encryption. Appendix B sets the retention period by the controller's contractual direction. Clause 8.1 requires deletion or return of all Customer Personal Data, including copies, within 30 days of termination. Any retention the law requires is limited to that purpose and stays under the agreement's protections, and the SaaS Terms add automatic deletion after 30 days as a backstop. Access runs on a need to know and least privilege basis, with automatic logout on inactivity. Subprocessors are named in a list published at its own URL. Sirion gives notice and an objection right for any addition or replacement, imposes equivalent terms on each, and is liable for their breaches. Clause 4.3 commits Sirion to notify the customer within 72 hours of establishing material impact from a confirmed Security Incident, and Appendix B says 48 to 72 hours, with updates until resolved. The definition expressly excludes unsuccessful attempts such as failed logins and denial of service attempts. Encryption is AES-256 at rest and TLS 1.2 in transit.

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.

Sirion publishes its SaaS terms and a separate end user agreement, so both can be read before signing. Clause 7.1 commits Sirion to indemnify and defend the customer against third party claims that use of the services infringes intellectual property. Clause 7.2 sets four exclusions, namely combination with materials Sirion did not provide, unapproved changes, unauthorized use, and use inconsistent with the documentation. Clause 7.3 gives the remedies of securing the right to continue, replacing or modifying the services, or terminating with a pro rata refund of prepaid fees, as Sirion's sole and exclusive liability. Clause 7.4 has the customer indemnify Sirion over customer data. Clause 8.1 caps each party's total liability, across the whole term, at the fees paid for the subscription in the twelve months before the first event giving rise to a claim. Clause 8.2 excludes lost profits, lost or damaged data and consequential loss, and under clause 8.3 the cap does not apply to fees owed, breach of confidentiality or the indemnities. Clause 6.2 warrants that the services perform materially in line with the documentation, with a pro rata refund if Sirion cannot correct a nonconformity reported within ten days. Separate Sirion AI Services terms extend the intellectual property indemnity to the AI features, but exclude claims that come from the customer failing to review or validate output. Section 5.1 of those terms disclaims any warranty that output is accurate or free from hallucinations. No insurance position is published.

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.

Nine named connectors are documented, each with its direction of travel, in the Non-Native Integrations article in Sirion University, last updated 24 February 2026. Four SAP Ariba accelerators cover procurement, bids, awards and contract workspaces. An executed contract request in Sirion creates a purchase requisition in Ariba, and the resulting purchase order is written back. Ariba sourcing events and RFPs become Contract Draft Requests on set triggers, one per bidding supplier with line items mapped, and supplier redlines move into Sirion for legal review. Awarded RFx events create a draft request with awarded line items synced. Contracts finalized in Sirion copy into Ariba Contract Workspaces with metadata, documents, line items and status. Three more connectors cover supplier master data from Ariba, SAP S/4HANA Business Partners on scheduled transfers, and Oracle ERP with logging, error handling and sync status. The Microsoft Dynamics connector runs both ways in auto or manual mode. The article describes configuration through triggers, modes and scheduling rather than as a full guide, and the wider Sirion University catalog needs a login. Sirion's public pages do not document the Word add in or the Salesforce connector to this depth. No document management connector such as iManage or NetDocuments appears on them.

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.

Sirion's application is SaaS hosted by a cloud provider, according to the data processing addendum, and all customer data is stored and processed in a Sirion application instance specific to that customer. That isolation commitment sits in a contract rather than in marketing. Four underlying providers appear in the trust center, namely AWS, Azure, Oracle and IBM, which suggests customer choice without offering it as an option. Sirion's published documents make no residency commitment and give no region list or jurisdiction option. Nothing separates where processing happens from where data is stored. A Sirion library article describes the platform's multitenant scalability, which sits awkwardly beside the addendum's customer specific instance, and nothing published reconciles the two.

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.

Appendix B of the data processing addendum names ISO 27001 as a held certification and describes the review process around it. Under clause 7.1, unless agreed otherwise, Sirion will give a copy of its latest security attestation report on the customer's written request, no more than once a year. Clause 7.2 adds a customer audit right, with scope, timing and controls agreed in advance and a reasonable fee. Appendix B also says Sirion reviews its cloud providers' SOC 1, SOC 2 and ISO 27001 reports as part of a shared responsibility model. That is oversight of the infrastructure rather than an attestation over the application. The report route is open to existing customers, so a prospective customer cannot get the report before signing. The addendum names no auditor, coverage period or scope statement for the ISO certificate. Sirion's trust center states ISO 27001:2022 certification. Its SOC 1 Type II and SOC 2 Type II sections explain what those reports cover, and its security page attributes SOC 1 and SOC 2 to the cloud providers Sirion runs on.

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.

An approach built on multiple models sits behind Sirion's AI, combining small purpose built models trained on enterprise contracts with large language models. Sirion presents that as the differentiator against generic models retrofitted for legal use. It names no large language model provider and identifies no model or version. It gives no processing location for the model layer as distinct from the cloud infrastructure. Nothing commits Sirion to notifying customers when any of it changes.

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.

No pricing is published at any level, including the unit of charge. Sirion's site has no pricing page, no tier structure, no unit per seat, per contract or per agent, no volume banding and no statement of what implementation adds. Every call to action is a demo request. No published figure lets a prospective customer estimate cost before a sales process, even though Sirion publishes its SaaS terms, end user agreement and data processing addendum in full.

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.

Eight industries have their own pages. Financial services is split into procurement and into capital markets and credit. Insurance has a separate solution for triaging underwriting submissions. The others are automotive, IT services, healthcare, pharmaceuticals and life sciences, telecom, and oil and gas. Five departments have their own pages, covering in house legal, legal operations, procurement, sales and finance. Customers are in more than 70 countries, and the site is in English, German and French. Sirion does not say where the product stops. It excludes no contract or matter types, does not address law firms, government or public sector use, and describes coverage by industry and department rather than area of law.