AI Legal Index
Vendors · Contract Review & Drafting

I
Ivo

Ivo is an AI contract review platform for in house legal teams at large enterprises. Ivo Review checks agreements against a company's own playbooks, executed contracts and deal context such as value and urgency, then applies redlines directly in Microsoft Word or Google Docs. It also benchmarks clauses against executed contracts by governing law, contract type, party role and industry, and turns templates and contracts already in the repository into a working playbook.

Ivo Assistant compares documents against prior agreements, reports on changes in the law and researches regulations. Ivo Intelligence connects to contracts wherever they are stored, extracts data for plain English questions, shows an agreement and its amendments as one timeline, and flags where executed contracts depart from standard positions. Ivo Collaborate, now available, runs the contracting lifecycle from intake through approval, negotiation and signature, with intake in Salesforce, redlines in Word and approvals in Slack.

A vendor run benchmark compared its redlines with a senior attorney and Claude for Word across 19 real contracts, with three attorneys judging the results blind. Atlassian, Canva and CDW are its featured customers. Ivo is operated by Ivo AI, Inc., based in San Francisco.

Vendor siteCompare with other vendors
Compared with

Ivo, 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.

Build your own comparison

Alternatives

Alternatives to Ivo

Vendors in the same categories as Ivo 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.

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.

AA on AI CentralityThe artificial intelligence is the product. Remove the models and there is nothing left to sell.

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.

Ivo applies models to contract review, portfolio analysis and the contracting workflow. Ivo Intelligence connects to contracts where they already live and adds extraction, plain English questions, amendment timelines and flags on departures from standard positions. Ivo Review assigns a separate agent to each topic, with a supervising agent that reconciles overlapping findings into one recommendation per topic, and applies playbook backed redlines in Word or Google Docs.

Review also benchmarks clauses against the customer's executed contracts, narrowed by contract type, governing law, party role and industry, and Playbook Builder derives positions from those agreements. Ivo Assistant compares documents, researches regulation and reports on changes in the law. Each of these steps is model work over the customer's own contracts.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureMeasured accuracy is published with the test set described and the failure modes named. Output grounds to primary authority the reader can open, citation status is checked, and the system states when it found no support.

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.

The contract review comparison set Ivo, Claude for Word running Opus 4.6 and a practicing Special Counsel at an Am Law 25 firm against the same 19 real, anonymized contracts. They spanned NDAs, MSAs, DPAs and other commercial types. Three attorneys with recent Am Law 100 or in house technology experience rated each output blind from 1 to 10 on issue spotting, surgical redlining, formatting retention, judgment and comments. The attorney averaged 4.56, Ivo 4.52 and Claude for Word 3.50, and the redlines and playbooks are downloadable.

A contract took Ivo 2 minutes 45 seconds on average, against about 32 minutes for the attorney. The study names formatting retention as Ivo's weak area, and Ivo ran the study itself. Separately, Intelligence reports 97% accuracy against the Contract Understanding Atticus Dataset of 30,000 expert annotations, and Assistant returns cited answers from more than 100 legal sources.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Autonomy and Oversight ModelA written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer, with real review surfaces, short of the full control structure: commonly the threshold at which the system stops or what happens after it is wrong.

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.

Redlines appear in Word or Google Docs for a reviewer to accept or reject. Playbook Builder cites the agreements behind its proposed positions and allows review before saving. Collaborate selects a workflow when an agreement arrives, progresses low risk agreements to signature and routes matters requiring judgment to a reviewer. The customer supplies the workflow steps, playbook and policy in plain English. The terms require use under a lawyer's direct supervision.

Precise criteria for classifying a contract as low risk and the response to an incorrect automatic approval are not specified.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Operational and Outcome EvidenceReal deployment evidence with substance, short of full attribution or measurement: a named customer without figures, or figures without the named customer.

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.

Atlassian, Canva and CDW are featured with case studies, and Suhayb Ahmed, head of commercial legal at Canva, and Carla Michel, director and senior counsel at CDW, are quoted on the home page. Quora's legal operations lead, Adrie Christensen, says the first pass of redlines back to a counterparty fell from about 11 hours to 5 minutes. An assistant general counsel at Kandji says Ivo saved hundreds of hours in a year.

None of these figures carries a date or a stated method. The benchmarking study compares output quality rather than production use: the attorney took 10 hours for the redlining tasks, while Ivo averaged 2 minutes and 45 seconds a contract.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureSubstantive published commitments on confidentiality and training use, short of the full picture: commonly silence on segregation between users or matters, or on what the underlying model provider may retain.

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.

Ivo's policy prohibits training AI models on customer data, while its general terms grant use of customer content to provide the service without a matching express training prohibition. Intelligence offers separate rooms for projects, acquisitions and business units, and customers assign roles and permissions. The terms provide deletion of customer content on request within 60 days after termination, with ordinary backup and record retention exceptions.

Their No Legal Advice clause waives claims of malpractice, privilege and an attorney client relationship in relation to Ivo. Model provider retention and the detailed enforcement of room boundaries are not specified.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA real position is published on advice versus tooling, short of full treatment: commonly a disclaimer without the supervision and competence dimension, or silence on jurisdiction limits.

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 terms carry a No Legal Advice clause. It says the service is no substitute for professional legal advice and that its legal information is general. Ivo does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of legal materials, and no attorney client or special relationship forms, including during implementation or training.

The same clause has the customer warrant that use runs under the direct supervision of a lawyer representing it, which carries the supervision duty into the contract. No jurisdiction limit is stated, and no bar or ethics opinion is cited.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureResponsible AI principles are published without a mechanism, a testing regime, or anything a buyer could audit.

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.

Ivo's benchmark compares contract redlines through a blind review method. Three attorneys with recent Am Law 100 or in house experience judged redlines from Ivo, Claude for Word and a practicing Special Counsel across 19 real, anonymized contracts. Every output was stripped of identifying information and rated blind on five criteria, issue spotting, surgical redlining, formatting retention, comments and judgment. Ratings run from 1 to 10 as the mean of the three judges: 4.56 for the attorney, 4.52 for Ivo and 3.50 for Claude for Word.

The study page sets out the playbook positions the redlines were judged against and offers the full report for download. No responsible AI policy, framework or accountable owner sits beside it, and SOC 2 and ISO 27001 cover information security.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on AI Safety and Data StewardshipA generic privacy policy covers the product without addressing what happens to documents and prompts after processing.

AI Safety and Data Stewardship

Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.

The privacy policy keeps a contract or document tied to a thumbs down rating for 14 days before deleting or deidentifying it. Other personal information is kept as long as Ivo has a business or operational purpose, and on request after termination customer content is deleted within 60 days.

Access control appears as the customer assigning roles and permissions to its authorized users. The subprocessor list and security documents sit in a Vanta trust center. No incident or breach notification practice is stated.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on AI Liability and RecourseLiability is addressed only through a standard limitation clause that disclaims the exposure the product creates.

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 terms of 20 November 2024 cap Ivo's total liability at $100, and more than one claim does not raise the limit. Indirect, consequential and punitive damages are excluded, and clause 8 disclaims all warranties, accuracy and fitness included.

The customer indemnifies Ivo, and no indemnity runs the other way. The customer also releases Ivo from every past, present and future claim relating to the service and waives section 1542 of the California Civil Code for unknown claims. Clause 14 adds a waiver of malpractice and privilege claims. Ivo's trust center lists a certificate of insurance among the documents it releases on request, and enterprise customers sign a separate Services Agreement that is not publicly available.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Practice Systems Integration DepthReal integrations exist and are documented, short of depth: named connections without a description of what they actually move.

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.

Review and Assistant run as add ins inside Microsoft Word and Google Docs, and review works on Word, PDF and Google Docs files. Intelligence connects to contracts wherever they are stored. Collaborate takes intake in Salesforce, redlines in Word and approvals in Slack, and syncs each teammate's changes back to the same deal with version history.

Connections also reach existing file systems, cloud storage, common CRMs and e signature vendors. Slack, Google Docs and Teams are among the services a customer may connect, through which Ivo may receive messages and attachments. Named document management systems, a developer reference and what syncs in each direction are not described.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyCloud delivery is implied and neither the tenancy model nor the region is stated.

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.

Delivery is in the cloud, with no region, residency option, tenancy model or hosting provider stated. The privacy policy says the business operates from the United States, Canada and other jurisdictions. Personal information may be transferred to and stored in the United States and other places whose laws differ, and transfers out of Europe rely on standard contractual clauses.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Security Certifications and Trust CenterCertification is real and stated, short of accessible evidence: a named standard without scope, date, or a way to obtain the report.

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.

SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 certification are stated, with GDPR and CCPA compliance. A Vanta trust center handles requests for the certifications and supplies subprocessor and audit material. No auditor, coverage period or scope appears on the open site. Access to the underlying reports depends on approval through that portal.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe vendor refers to advanced or proprietary models without identifying what sits underneath.

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.

The engine is described as proprietary, and no model or provider is named for live use. The privacy policy lists artificial intelligence among the services that vendors help with, and the benchmark tested Claude for Word as a comparison rather than as a component. Where inference runs is not stated, and the subprocessor list sits in the trust center rather than on the site.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Commercial TransparencyPricing is gated behind a demo request while tier names and feature splits are published, so the shape is visible and the number is not.

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.

Every route in is a demo request, and no price is listed. The terms set the shape. Fees are fixed in a Services Agreement for an initial term with renewal terms, priced and invoiced in United States dollars, and nonrefundable apart from prorated refunds on certain terminations. Ivo can change fees or add charges at the end of a term with 30 days notice, and the privacy policy describes the business as subscriptions. Implementation takes about a week.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Firm and Practice CoverageSegment and practice coverage is described with substance, short of the boundaries: what is supported is clear, what is not is left open.

Firm and Practice Coverage

Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.

The buyer is the in house legal department at large enterprises, and the named customers run across technology, semiconductors, payments, food service, industrials and retail distribution. Coverage is described by document type: the benchmark covers NDAs, MSAs, DPAs and other commercial agreements, and Review handles any document in Word, PDF or Google Docs.

Research covers United States sources such as EDGAR, the United States Code, Congress.gov, eCFR and the Federal Register, and UK and EU material from Companies House, Parliament and the Court of Justice. No company size floor, excluded contract type or unsupported jurisdiction is stated, and law firms are not addressed.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

7 public documents

The public pages on file for Ivo, 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.

What changed

Tracked changes at Ivo

Oct 2, 2026Product / capabilityPartially Verified

Ivo launched Collaborate, a new product for managing contracts before signature, now live. Its Assistant gains a thinking effort setting with four levels (Fast, Balanced, Deep and Max), Review 2.0 shows recommendations as they are generated, and Playbook Builder now keeps the positions in an uploaded playbook unchanged. Skills can be pinned and cloned, and the Word add in installs from a quick link in one to three clicks.

Bears on: AI CentralitySource
Every tracked change for Ivo →

Legal Signals

What each signal means

A 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.

Confidentiality and Privilege

Client Data in Training

Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?

Never, in policy only

A public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement.

Customer data never trains AI models, according to the home page. The terms carry no matching clause; they let Ivo use customer content to provide the service and use feedback freely. The privacy policy lets Ivo improve its services by analyzing feature use and submitted documentation, and use deidentified or aggregated information for any purpose. Intelligence uses customer agreements to build playbooks and answer repository questions.

Source: Vendor PublishedWe never train AI models on customer dataAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence

Prompt and Output Retention

How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?

Disclosed without a period

Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.

Information is kept as long as Ivo has a business or operational purpose, with no period and no customer setting. A contract or document tied to a thumbs down rating is kept for 14 days, then deleted or deidentified unless the law requires otherwise. On request after termination, customer content is deleted within 60 days, subject to ordinary backup and record retention exceptions in the terms.

Source: Vendor Publishedas long as we continue to have a business or operational purposeAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?

Claimed, not documented

Segregation is asserted in public materials with no published detail on how it is enforced.

Intelligence offers separate rooms for projects, acquisitions and business units to control access and the scope of analysis. Customers also assign user roles and permissions. The rooms provide a way to separate contract collections inside the service, but the permission inheritance, administrator setup and enforcement at retrieval time are not described. No automatic inheritance of a source document system's ethical walls is specified.

Source: Operator VerifiedControl access and scope by isolating projects, acquisitions, and business units into separate rooms.As of Oct 15, 2026Evidence

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?

Notice committed

Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.

The Legal Process clause of the terms lets Ivo respond to subpoenas, warrants, liens and other legal orders about an account, without responsibility for the customer's resulting losses. Where permitted, Ivo gives reasonable notice that it received the order. No transparency report is offered.

Source: Vendor Publishedwe will provide you reasonable Notice that we have received such an orderAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence
Accuracy and Authority

Primary Law Corpus Provenance

Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?

Sources named, basis unstated

Sources are identified without stating the license or rights basis.

Assistant answers from more than 100 legal sources. For the United States these include EDGAR and SEC filings, the United States Code, Congress.gov, eCFR and the Federal Register, and UK and EU questions draw on Companies House, Parliament and the Court of Justice. No license basis or update schedule is given. Most of the product's material is the customer's own executed contracts and playbooks, with Playbook Builder citing each position back to its source agreement.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence

Good Law Verification

Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.

Assistant and Review retrieve case law and statutes with citations, described as verified, and Assistant reports on changes in the law. Whether a cited authority has later history or has been superseded is not flagged.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 12, 2026

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.

Review gives one recommendation per topic with the reasoning and source behind it, and a user can rate an answer down after the fact. No behavior is described for a question the product cannot answer from its sources, and no confidence measure is shown.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 12, 2026

Fabricated Citation Record

Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?

None located

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.

The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming Ivo or Ivo AI, Inc. Its products review and manage contracts for in house legal teams.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?

Not addressed

No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.

The terms require use under the direct supervision of a lawyer representing the customer. Their No Legal Advice clause says the service provides general legal information, forms no attorney client relationship and cannot replace professional advice. Ivo does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness or timeliness of legal material. A named bar opinion or jurisdiction specific ethics guidance does not accompany that contractual supervision requirement.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 12, 2026

Billing and Fee Posture

Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?

Outside the fee relationship

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.

Ivo is sold to in house legal teams at large enterprises, with Atlassian, Canva and CDW as its featured customers. Its time claims are aimed at those teams. The home page promises review, redlines and insights from contracts in minutes. In Ivo's benchmarking study the attorney took 10 hours for the redlining tasks, while Ivo averaged 2 minutes and 45 seconds a contract.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 12, 2026Evidence

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?

On request only

The material exists behind a sales conversation or an executed agreement.

The subprocessor list and security documents sit in a Vanta trust center where copies of the SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 certifications are requested. The privacy policy confirms that AI providers are among Ivo's service providers without naming them, and no client facing disclosure material is offered. Requests pass through the portal's access process before the reports are supplied.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 12, 2026

Court Disclosure Support

If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.

Playbook Builder cites each drafted position back to the agreement it came from, Review gives the source behind each recommendation, and redlines land as tracked changes a person accepts. The model behind a passage is not recorded, and no export for a court filing is offered.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 12, 2026
Contact

Correct a record, or ask how something was graded

Every grade and every signal on this index is drawn from public sources and dated. If a record is wrong, out of date, or missing an artifact the index did not locate, send the source and it will be reviewed and the record redated. Vendors are welcome to submit documentation. Nothing on this index is for sale, including a listing, a placement, or a grade.

AI Legal Index

The AI Legal Index is an independent index that tracks changes to AI vendors in legal. It holds 462 vendors across 9 categories, each graded on the same 15 capability axes and recorded against 12 legal signals, from public sources. No vendor pays for inclusion, placement, or rating.

Index Status
Last index update
October 16, 2026
The AI Legal Index is an editorial reference. It is not a regulatory body, not a law firm, and nothing published here is legal advice or a recommendation to retain or avoid a vendor. Records are verified against published sources, bar guidance and public court records. Where a record reads not addressed, the material was not located in public sources on the date shown. See the Methodology page for evaluation standards and limitations.
© 2026 AI Legal Index
3801 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste E240 · Austin, TX 78746