C
Contractbook
Contractbook brings contract drafting, signatures, data extraction and ongoing obligations into a shared workspace. Its AI Import reads legacy agreements, identifies fields such as dates and parties, and links extracted values to highlighted text in the original file. Users verify those values before using them to drive reminders or other automated actions. The separate AI Contract Assistant explains clauses, summarizes terms and suggests revisions during review.
Legal teams can define templates and permissions while sales, HR and operations work with agreements in the same system. HubSpot data can populate a contract and receive updated information after signing. Salesforce, Zapier, Make and an API support additional workflows. Shared spaces organize the repository, with separate rights for viewing contracts, managing them and controlling the space itself.
Scrive acquired Contractbook in June 2025. The product continues under the Contractbook name, with its headquarters in Copenhagen and a focus on small and midsize businesses. Named users include Lenus, Bizzkit, GANNI and Pave. Essential, Centralize and Accelerate vary by users, templates, signed agreements and automation features. Model training requires customer consent under the service terms.
Contractbook, head to head
Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.
- BContractbook vs BigleContract Review & Drafting
- BContractbook vs BounselContract Review & Drafting
- CContractbook vs Conga CLMContract Review & Drafting
- CContractbook vs ContractifyContract Review & Drafting
- IContractbook vs IroncladContract Review & Drafting
- JContractbook vs JuroContract Review & Drafting
- LContractbook vs LawliftContract Review & Drafting
- LContractbook vs LexagleContract Review & Drafting
- OContractbook vs OneflowContract Review & Drafting
- PContractbook vs PactlyContract Review & Drafting
Alternatives to Contractbook
Vendors in the same categories as Contractbook whose graded profiles look most alike, with a line on what each product does.
Similar is not the same, so check that each one does the job you need. No vendor pays for placement.
- Ffynkfynk is a contract management platform from fynk GmbH in Vienna, founded in April 2022 by a team that had built and sold the recruiting software Prescreen.
- GGavelGavel, formerly Documate, makes two legal products under its own name.
- NnetLexnetLex is a contract lifecycle platform for company legal teams and the sales, procurement and finance staff working with them.
- OOneflowOneflow combines editable web contracts, approvals, electronic signatures and a contract repository with AI drafting, extraction and review.
- RRobin AIRobin AI combines contract interpretation with a legal operations workspace.
- SSpotDraftSpotDraft is a contract lifecycle platform for in house legal teams and their sales, finance, HR and procurement colleagues.
Ordered by how closely the graded profiles match across the 15 capability axes, inside the same categories. See how each axis is graded in the methodology.
Capability grades
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. 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.
AI Import reads existing contracts, extracts structured fields and helps turn a collection of files into a usable agreement database. The Contract Assistant adds plain language questions, summaries, risk identification and clause revisions. Both operate inside a wider application with template drafting, collaboration, electronic signatures and ongoing contract management. Templates and configured workflows still handle repeat agreements independently of the assistant.
Customers can combine the extracted dates and obligations with reminders, while CRM data populates new agreements. Essential includes the assistant; higher plans add broader data extraction, custom fields, automation and team administration around these AI functions.
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.
AI Import connects extracted data to the text it came from. Selecting a purple field in the sidebar moves the reader to its exact location in the original agreement and highlights the passage. Users can inspect individual values or verify all fields together, and the repository marks completed verification. Import first processes the uploaded files and extracts their contract data, with OCR included for relevant files.
This is source based verification of customer agreements, rather than a legal citator. No test set, measured accuracy result or explicit unsupported answer behavior accompanies the Contract Assistant's broader clause recommendations.
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.
An AI import can be canceled during upload, OCR or extraction, and the canceled file is discarded. After processing, a reviewer checks the proposed data against highlighted source text and marks the fields verified. That verification can become the trigger for a reminder or a move into a shared space. Users need the relevant company permissions to import files and manage custom contract types. Template workflows also support approval steps before signing.
These controls give teams review and cancellation surfaces, but the assistant has no stated confidence cutoff or defined escalation path for an answer that cannot be supported.
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.
Bizzkit's compliance officer describes saving 15 to 20 hours extracting data from about 50 legacy data processing agreements. That is a named example of AI extraction in use, with the time estimate supplied by the customer. Lenus separately describes reducing contract preparation from 15 minutes to five through templates and integrations with Salesforce, Greenhouse and HiBob. Those automation results are not presented as a measurement of the newer Contract Assistant.
GANNI and Pave also discuss repository and extraction benefits. No dated comparative study isolates the assistant's effects on review quality or legal outcomes.
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.
Section 9.12 of the service terms bars AI model training on retained platform data unless the customer gives consent in writing or through the application. Confidential information is limited to service delivery and remains protected after termination. AI imports start in the user's private contract view, while sharing depends on the application's space permissions. Google Cloud hosts platform data and Azure hosts the language model, both with EU locations in the processor list.
Privilege and work product handling are not addressed directly, and the terms do not specify what the model provider retains from individual prompts or responses.
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.
The service is restricted to business activity and is not offered to consumers. Section 8 describes the supplied templates as drafting inspiration rather than legal advice, and the company profile makes the same tooling distinction for the product. Legal teams can control templates, approvals and shared spaces while other employees generate routine agreements. The customer remains responsible for using suitable agreements and deciding whether electronic signatures are appropriate.
No jurisdiction specific competence guidance or named professional supervision standard accompanies the assistant. Its explanation and rewriting features therefore sit inside the customer's own legal review and contracting responsibilities.
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.
Contractbook's trust center describes security policies, change management and an incident response program. Management reviews that security program at least annually, and production data is restricted in development and testing environments. The AI features separately support source highlights, user verification and consent for model training. None of these materials sets out an AI release evaluation process, a responsible AI framework or results showing uneven performance across contract types or user groups.
The page titled AI Policy Page is a company and product profile for automated readers, rather than a policy assigning accountability for the behavior of the language model.
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.
Customers can remove or archive their own data through the application and request removal at termination. Signature verification information has separate retention rules and generally requires all signers' consent before deletion. The privacy policy gives a general service data retention period with legal exceptions, while the processor list identifies providers, roles and locations. Space permissions, encrypted storage, logging and a trust center incident plan add operational controls.
Confidentiality breaches require prompt notice under the terms. A specific retention window for assistant prompts and outputs, together with a deletion schedule at the model host, is not stated.
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 service agreement limits liability to fees paid in the 12 months before the first claim arose. It excludes lost profit, business opportunity, third party liabilities, data loss and several other categories of loss, and supplies the service as is. Death or personal injury caused by negligence, fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation are outside the stated limitations. The customer, rather than the vendor, gives the agreement's indemnity.
Contractbook promises customary insurance without naming its amount or scope. These provisions do not provide a specific warranty or recovery route for a mistaken AI clause explanation, extraction or revision.
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.
The HubSpot integration moves deal and company data into contract templates and can synchronize negotiated values back after signing. Setup requires defined template fields, the appropriate Contractbook template or company permissions, and specified HubSpot CRM, product library and marketplace rights. The administrator connects the accounts through Integrations and accepts the requested permissions, then configures triggers and actions.
HubSpot quotes can become attachments, and its widget displays contract status and activity. Disconnecting unpublishes related automations without deleting generated files. Salesforce, API access, Zapier and Make extend other workflows, with availability and charges varying by plan.
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.
Contractbook runs as an online contract workspace with organization accounts, shared spaces and individual access rights. The subprocessor list places Google Cloud platform hosting and Azure language model hosting in the EU. It also identifies United States services for email, messaging, monitoring, traffic management and integrations, so the EU hosting entries do not describe every supporting data flow. The privacy policy permits transfers outside the EU and EEA with safeguards.
No country selection, customer hosted installation or private tenancy option is specified, and the available material does not allocate storage and processing locations separately for each subscription plan.
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 security page states SOC 2 compliance and describes recurring penetration tests, encrypted credentials, verified accounts and two factor signing. A Secureframe trust center offers a SOC 2 report through a request control and lists security policies covering access, change management, risk and incident response. Its public material does not identify the assessment period, report type, auditor or detailed system scope.
The separate Openli profile could not be accessed, so any material there remains unknown. Customer signatures and identity controls support contract execution, while the SOC 2 claim addresses service controls rather than measured accuracy of the AI assistant.
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.
Microsoft Azure hosts the large language model used for the product's AI functions, with the processor list assigning that service an EU location. Google Cloud is separately responsible for storage and platform hosting. The application combines document import, OCR, field extraction and a conversational contract assistant, but the specific model name and version are not identified. The terms require customer consent before retained platform data is used for model training.
A general notice rule for contractual updates does not provide a specific commitment to notify customers about model replacements or changes to the inference supply chain.
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.
Essential, Centralize and Accelerate include one, five and ten users, with annual signed contract allowances of 100, 350 and 500. Template limits are five, 15 and 25. The current pricing page shows no base subscription amount; a company profile updated in March 2026 gives a starting rate of €89 per month. The pricing FAQ lists five extra users at €50 per month, or €600 annually. Automation and provisioning are optional for Centralize and included in Accelerate, while several integrations cost extra. Custom setup uses a quote, and the terms provide for upgrades or additional charges when usage limits are exceeded.
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.
Small and midsize sales, legal, HR and operations teams use the platform for standard recurring agreements such as NDAs, sales contracts and employment agreements. The Lenus case describes legal counsel setting templates and boundaries for colleagues across several markets. Bizzkit uses extraction for legacy data processing agreements, while GANNI and Pave describe contract visibility and renewal work. The company focuses on European markets and also offers industry pages for government, healthcare, construction and procurement.
Its own profile excludes legal advice and simple one off signing as its intended role, without supplying a jurisdiction by jurisdiction support matrix.
7 public documents
The public pages on file for Contractbook, with the recorded signals each one supports and the date it was last read. Open any of them and check the reading against the record.
-
contractbook.com/legal/terms4 signals
Client Data in Training, Prompt and Output Retention, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice and 1 more
Read Oct 15, 2026
-
helpcenter.contractbook.com/kb/guide/en/ai-import-your-old-contracts-WXFCt6BWsu/Steps/59102913 signals
Primary Law Corpus Provenance, Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior, Court Disclosure Support
Read Oct 15, 2026
-
contractbook.com/ai-policy-page1 signal
Billing and Fee Posture
Read Oct 15, 2026
-
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Read Oct 15, 2026
-
Good Law Verification
Read Oct 15, 2026
-
helpcenter.contractbook.com/kb/guide/en/how-to-share-contract-spaces-gwK6xPgpI3/Steps/59102961 signal
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Read Oct 15, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Oct 15, 2026
€89 per month
- The vendor's company profile gives a starting rate of €89 per month.
- The current plan page requires a quote for base subscriptions.
- Plans limit users, templates and signed contracts.
- Extra users and some integrations add to the subscription.
The company profile updated in March 2026 gives a starting rate of €89 per month; the current pricing page withholds base subscription amounts. Essential, Centralize and Accelerate include one, five and ten users, with 100, 350 and 500 fully signed contracts per year. Five extra users cost €50 per month, billed as €600 annually.
Implementation: Centralize includes guided onboarding and Accelerate includes dedicated onboarding support. Custom workflows and initial setup use a tailored quote, with no fixed implementation fee.
Confidentiality and data terms: AI training requires customer consent under the service agreement. A customer specific data processing agreement is available through a generation workflow.
Note: The €89 amount comes from the vendor's company profile, not the current plan cards. Annual signing limits reset; uploaded files count over the account's lifetime. The terms allow extra charges or upgrades for excess use and generally require 30 days notice before nonrenewal.
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
Training occurs only where the customer has affirmatively enabled it.
Section 9.12 prohibits use of retained platform data for AI model training unless the customer consents in writing or through the platform. Section 9.1 separately refers to anonymized development data where consent has been given. The general service processing license covers delivery, maintenance, fixes, security and legal obligations. It does not override the express training consent requirement, and no default training permission is stated for a new customer.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The customer controls the retention window, by product configuration or by contractual instruction, but zero retention is not stated as available.
Customers may remove or archive their data at any time through the platform under section 9.4, and may request removal of their own data when the agreement ends. Signature verification information follows a separate rule requiring signer consent. The privacy policy supplies a broader service data retention period with legal exceptions. No explicit zero retention setting or separate fixed period for assistant prompts and answers is specified.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.
AI imports are private in the importing user's contract view until shared directly or moved to a shared space. Space access separates viewing, contract management and space management, while external collaborators receive view rights only. Company user groups can also receive access, with direct permissions surviving removal from a group. This is Contractbook's own access model, without an identified connection that inherits a firm's document system ethical walls.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.
Section 9.8 requires written notice before legally compelled disclosure whenever possible. The confidentiality clauses also permit information to be supplied to other signers of an agreement completed through the platform. The privacy policy covers legal obligations and requests from authorities. No transparency report accompanies these commitments. The separate Disclosure Policy concerns security vulnerability reporting and does not describe the handling of subpoenas or other demands for customer contracts.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Sources are identified without stating the license or rights basis.
AI Import processes the customer's legacy agreements and points extracted fields back to text in those files. The contract assistant also works with the selected agreement, while customers can create templates or use the vendor's template library. No licensed case law or statute collection is identified for those functions. The supplied templates are drafting material, and the agreement expressly distinguishes them from legal advice for the customer's situation.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
The platform's verification feature checks extracted information against the source contract, with highlighted passages and a completed verification marker. It does not track judicial treatment of cases or statutory amendments. The assistant can explain and rewrite clauses, but no connection to a legal citator or warning that an authority has been overturned is specified. Renewal reminders and signature status concern the agreement's lifecycle, rather than the legal status of an authority.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
Reviewers can inspect AI extracted fields beside highlighted source passages and verify them individually or together. They can also cancel an import during processing, which discards the file. These controls let a person check the extraction, but no explicit unsupported answer response or confidence indicator is described for the conversational assistant. The option to stop an upload is a user action, not a model refusal when information is insufficient.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
No court order or disciplinary record concerning fabricated legal citations from Contractbook appears in the AI Hallucination Cases database. The product extracts data from customer agreements and offers questions, summaries and clause revisions within its contract workspace. That database result does not measure extraction or drafting accuracy. Its source highlights support a user's review of contract data, without constituting a check of every legal assertion produced by the assistant.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
The service terms limit the platform to business users and explain that the template library does not provide legal advice. Legal departments can control templates, permissions and review steps for other employees. No named bar opinion, jurisdiction specific competence requirement or product mapping to professional ethics guidance accompanies these controls. The statement that the service is a business tool does not specify how a lawyer should record supervision of its AI functions.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The product does not touch a fee between a lawyer and a client. It operates before an engagement exists, or it is bought by a team that bills no client for the work. Savings claims aimed at the buyer’s own cost are recorded in the summary and do not make the row a savings claim, because no client bill is in the loop.
The stated buyers are business teams managing their own sales, employment, supplier and compliance agreements. Named legal customers include internal counsel at Lenus, GANNI and Pave, and the product describes savings in their contract administration. Bizzkit reports less manual extraction work on legacy agreements. No law firm client billing workflow is identified in the current buyer materials, and those savings relate to the organization's own time and contracting costs.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.
The processor register names Google Cloud for platform hosting and Azure for the language model, both in the EU, alongside supporting providers and their locations. Customer terms set a training consent requirement and confidentiality duties. The data processing agreement is generated through a workflow that requests customer details and acceptance of terms. No separate client consent pack or exact model version inventory accompanies the public processor register.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.
Imported agreements retain extracted fields, highlighted source passages and a verification state that users can inspect in the contract view. The application also tracks versions, collaboration and signature activity. These elements provide part of the record of a user's review, without a specified export connecting each AI response to its model version and a named human verifier. No court specific certification form or complete AI disclosure bundle is described.