Contract lifecycle management and e-signature
Asked as “contract lifecycle management platform”, and as “e-signature and contract management tool”, on behalf of a mid-market B2B software company. 26 first choices recorded across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, six models each.
Standing · first-choice share
27%
Contested · Juro 19%
27Ironclad19Juro19PandaDoc35others
27% of first choices, contested.
The standing
Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, over all six models, for a mid-market B2B software company. Ordered by share.
ProductFirst-choice shareNegative rateLabelsQuadrantSince September 2026
Show the six products at 0%, ordered by negative rate
09SAP Ariba Contracts0%70%10criticized challengernewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
10
Icertis Contract Intelligence0%61%18criticized challengernewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
Icertis Contract Intelligence0%61%18criticized challengernewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.05
Agiloft Contract Management Suite0%31%13criticized challengernewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.
Agiloft Contract Management Suite0%31%13criticized challengernewNew since September 2026: not ranked then, 0% now.The floor is 12 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one can't be told apart from repeat variation, and both are shown. Each index measures its own floor from its own repeat, over its own categories, so the floor differs from one index to the next. How the floor is measured
Bars are the share of first choices, 0 to 100Every product with at least 10 labels here. Every product name links to its product page.
All six head-to-head pages: the top four products, each against each
Recommended versus criticized
Every product with at least 10 labels here, on both axes. The 30% line names a quadrant, not the verdict above: that one needs more than 40%.
Criticized challengerCriticized default
Negative label rate →
01
02
03
0405
06
07
08S09
10Accepted challengerEndorsed leader
0%First-choice share → · lines at 30% share and 25% negative40%
Key
01Ironclad27%
Ironclad27%02Juro19%
Juro19%03PandaDoc19%
PandaDoc19%04LinkSquares4%
LinkSquares4%05Agiloft Contract Management Suite0%
Agiloft Contract Management Suite0%06Sirion0%
Sirion0%07DocuSign CLM0%
DocuSign CLM0%08Conga CLM0%
Conga CLM0%09SAP Ariba Contracts0%
10Icertis Contract Intelligence0%
Icertis Contract Intelligence0%What they warned about
One of six models held their first choice under the paraphrase. Claude Opus 5, Claude Opus 4.8, GPT-6 Astra, Gemini 3.1 Pro and Perplexity Sonar Pro changed. A high negative share on a product with few labels is a warning. A low share on a product with many labels is salience, not sentiment.
Icertis Contract Intelligence61%
11 of 18 labels negative · 6 of 6 models · 2 hard negative
“Avoid platforms built exclusively for the Fortune 500 (like Icertis), as they may be too heavy and expensive” Gemini 3.1 Pro, scale prompt
DocuSign CLM50%
9 of 18 labels negative · 6 of 6 models
“you should be highly cautious about them if you are a small-to-midsize business (SMB) or lack a dedicated implementation team” Gemini 3.1 Pro, negative prompt
Conga CLM50%
7 of 14 labels negative · 5 of 6 models · 1 hard negative
“skip Icertis, Sirion, Agiloft, and Conga unless you have real scale” Claude Opus 5, budget prompt
SAP Ariba Contracts
70%
7 of 10 labels negative · 5 of 6 models · 1 hard negative
“I would avoid it for a new implementation unless an existing SAP architecture makes it unavoidable.” GPT-5.6 Sol, negative prompt
What they cite
Six of the six models returned a source list in this edition: six return the pages they cited.
Sites the answers cite
31 of 36 answers in this category came back with a source list, from 6 of 6 models: citations where the model returns them, or the search results it consulted. 544 links across 169 sites, every framing counted. Ranked by the number of answers carrying the site or page. None of the 36 answers across every segment cited this index's own page for the category.
vendor site · Sirion16 answers · 26 citations · 6 models
15 answers · 19 citations · 6 models
vendor site · Juro14 answers · 19 citations · 5 models
13 answers · 32 citations · 5 models
vendor site · Gartner12 answers · 16 citations · 5 models
vendor site · Bind11 answers · 20 citations · 3 models
vendor site · Conga11 answers · 11 citations · 6 models
10 answers · 13 citations · 3 models
vendor site · Summize10 answers · 12 citations · 4 models
vendor site · HyperStart8 answers · 16 citations · 3 models
vendor site · DocuSign8 answers · 9 citations · 5 models
vendor site · Concord7 answers · 12 citations · 5 models
Pages the answers cite
The ten pages named in the most answers, by full address. A page here is one the models returned with a recommendation, not one the index endorses.
10 answers · 4 models
9 answers · 4 models
8 answers · 5 models
8 answers · 4 models
7 answers · 4 models
6 answers · 3 models
6 answers · 3 models
5 answers · 2 models
5 answers · 2 models
5 answers · 3 models
Search against answers
Each company's standing in the answers beside its site's footprint in Google search, one row a site: the products the models named on it with their shares, and the share they add up to; monthly searches on Google, and DataForSEO's estimate of AI search demand (modeled from search signals, directional, not a count of queries to any assistant), for the most-searched of the company's and its products' names (the name is in each row's hover text); estimated monthly organic visits to the site; and its best position in Google's top ten for “best contract lifecycle management platform”, “contract lifecycle management platform”. US estimates from DataForSEO and Google's Ads Transparency Center. A small company's site, or a mid-sized company's site for its flagship, is marked company; a product on a large parent's site (Google, Microsoft) has no site figures. A column with no figures for this category is left out, and an empty cell means none were seen, not none exist. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
| Company and products | Share | Own site cited | Name searches, Google | AI search demand, est. | Organic visits | Paid search a month, est. | Google ads, last 30 days |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ironclad ironcladapp.com | 27% | 137 | 49,500 | 3,365 | 128,319 | 120 | |
| Juro juro.com | 19% | 63 | 2,900 | 536 | 44,442 | $168 | 120 |
| PandaDoc pandadoc.com | 19% | 538 | 60,500 | 510 | 425,196 | $42,516 | 119 |
| Zoho parent site Zoho Contracts 15% | 15% | 27 | 390 | 8 | |||
| Concord concord.app | 8% | 89 | 246,000 | 58,369 | 18,445 | ||
| LinkSquares linksquares.com | 4% | 32 | 2,900 | 46 | 2,984 | 20 | |
| DocuSign docusign.com DocuSign eSignature 4%, DocuSign 0% | 4% | 64 | 1,000,000 | 9,641 | 2,280,470 | $20 | 120 |
| ContractWorks contractworks.com | 4% | 44 | 720 | 3 | 1,720 | 1 | |
| SpotDraft spotdraft.com | 0% | 44 | 1,300 | 17 | 5,760 | 4 | |
| ContractSafe contractsafe.com | 0% | 59 | 1,000 | 7 | 38,687 | $687 | 120 |
Google's top ten for the two searches hold 17 sites; 1 of them are among the sites the models cited here (g2.com). The first result for “best contract lifecycle management platform” is reddit.com.
How they answered
Six framings of the same buying question, each sent to every model in a fresh session with search on. One row per model, so a row shows whether it held its answer under rewording, what it named when cost was the constraint, and what it argued against. Computed from the raw judge labels.ShowHide
How they answered
Six framings of the same buying question, each sent to every model in a fresh session with search on. One row per model, so a row shows whether it held its answer under rewording, what it named when cost was the constraint, and what it argued against. Computed from the raw judge labels.
ShowHideModelDirect“What is the best contract lifecycle management platform for a mid-market B2B software company?”Paraphrase“Which e-signature and contract management tool would you recommend to a mid-sized B2B software company?”Comparative“What are the top contract lifecycle management platforms and how do they differ?”Budget-constrained“What is the best contract lifecycle management platform for a company with a limited budget?”Scale-constrained“We are a 500 person company evaluating a contract lifecycle management platform. What should we look at?”Negative“Which contract lifecycle management platforms should I avoid or be cautious about?”
Claude Opus 5Ironclad, Juro, LinkSquaresagainst: Icertis Contract Intelligence, SirionDocuSign eSignature, Ironclad, PandaDocChangedagainst: Luminance, Sirionno first choiceagainst: Coupa CLM, SAP Ariba ContractsConcord, Zoho Contractsagainst: Agiloft Contract Management Suite, Conga CLM, Icertis Contract Intelligence, Sirionno first choiceagainst: Agiloft Contract Management Suite, Conga CLM, DocuSign CLM, Icertis Contract Intelligence, Ironclad
Three alternatives
Agiloft Contract Management Suite, Contractbook, DocuSign CLMThree alternatives
Adobe Acrobat Sign, Juro, Salesforce Revenue CloudTwo alternatives
Juro, PandaDocClaude Opus 4.8Ironclad, Juro, PandaDocagainst: DocuSign CLMPandaDocChangedno first choiceConcordno first choiceagainst: Conga CLM, Coupa CLM, DocuSign CLM, Icertis Contract Intelligence, SAP Ariba Contracts
Two alternatives
Conga CLM, LinkSquaresFour alternatives
DocuSign CLM, Dropbox Sign, Ironclad, JuroNine alternatives
Agiloft Contract Management Suite, Conga CLM, ContractPodAi, DocuSign CLM, Icertis Contract Intelligence, Ironclad, LinkSquares, SAP Ariba Contracts, SirionLabsThree alternatives
ContractSafe, PandaDoc, Zoho ContractsGPT-6 AstraIroncladJuroChangedno first choiceZoho Contractsagainst: Concordno first choiceagainst: Agiloft Contract Management Suite, Conga CLM, DocuSign CLM, Icertis Contract Intelligence, Ironclad
Two alternatives
Juro, SpotDraftThree alternatives
DocuSign CLM, Ironclad, PandaDocOne alternative
ContractSafeGPT-5.6 SolJuroagainst: Agiloft Contract Management Suite, Coupa CLM, Icertis Contract IntelligenceJuroHeldagainst: PandaDocno first choiceZoho Contractsagainst: Jurono first choiceagainst: Conga CLM, DocuSign CLM, Icertis Contract Intelligence, Ironclad, SAP Ariba Contracts, Workday CLM
Three alternatives
Ironclad, LinkSquares, SpotDraftFour alternatives
DocuSign CLM, DocuSign eSignature, Dropbox Sign, IroncladNine alternatives
Agiloft Contract Management Suite, Conga CLM, Coupa CLM, DocuSign, Icertis Contract Intelligence, Ironclad, LinkSquares, Sirion, Workday CLMTwo alternatives
ContractSafe, PandaDocEight alternatives
Agiloft Contract Management Suite, DocuSign CLM, Icertis Contract Intelligence, Ironclad, Juro, LinkSquares, Sirion, SpotDraftGemini 3.1 ProIroncladagainst: Icertis Contract Intelligence, SAP Ariba Contracts, SirionPandaDocChangedagainst: DocuSign CLMno first choiceZoho Contractsagainst: DocuSign CLM, IroncladIroncladagainst: Icertis Contract Intelligenceagainst: DocuSign CLM, Icertis Contract Intelligence, SAP Ariba Contracts, Workday CLM
Four alternatives
Juro, Lexion, LinkSquares, SpotDraftTwo alternatives
Ironclad, JuroFive alternatives
Concord, Contract Flash, ContractSafe, PandaDoc, Xakia ContractsFour alternatives
ContractPodAi, LinkSquares, PandaDoc, SpotDraftPerplexity Sonar ProIroncladagainst: Conga CLMPandaDocChangedno first choiceContractWorksno first choiceagainst: Conga CLM, ContractPodAi, Contractbook, Coupa CLM, DocuSign CLM, Icertis Contract Intelligence, Ironclad, Oneflow, PandaDoc, SAP Ariba Contracts
Four alternatives
DealHub, GetAccept, Juro, LinkSquaresThree alternatives
Adobe Acrobat Sign, DocuSign, GetAcceptThree alternatives
Bind, Concord, Zoho ContractsBold is the first choiceAlternatives are counted; the count opens them.What the answer argued against
The record
One row per call: the version string exactly as returned, whether the model searched, sources cited, and latency.
Thirty-six rows: every prompt, every model, every answer.
| Prompt | Model | Version string | Time (UTC) | Searched | Sources | Latency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Direct recommendation | Claude Opus 5 | claude-opus-5 | 2026-09-09 20:29 | yes | 36 | 60 s |
| Direct recommendation | Claude Opus 4.8 | claude-opus-4-8 | 2026-09-09 20:30 | no | 0 | 16 s |
| Direct recommendation | GPT-6 Astra | gpt-6-astra | 2026-09-09 20:31 | yes | 6 | 32 s |
| Direct recommendation | GPT-5.6 Sol | gpt-5.6-sol | 2026-09-09 20:33 | yes | 8 | 67 s |
| Direct recommendation | Gemini 3.1 Pro | gemini-3.1-pro-preview | 2026-09-10 17:23 | yes | 7 | 41 s |
| Direct recommendation | Perplexity Sonar Pro | sonar-pro | 2026-09-09 20:30 | yes | 19 | 5 s |
| Paraphrase | Claude Opus 5 | claude-opus-5 | 2026-09-09 20:36 | yes | 41 | 75 s |
| Paraphrase | Claude Opus 4.8 | claude-opus-4-8 | 2026-09-09 20:37 | no | 0 | 20 s |
| Paraphrase | GPT-6 Astra | gpt-6-astra | 2026-09-09 20:39 | yes | 6 | 29 s |
| Paraphrase | GPT-5.6 Sol | gpt-5.6-sol | 2026-09-09 20:40 | yes | 4 | 41 s |
| Paraphrase | Gemini 3.1 Pro | gemini-3.1-pro-preview | 2026-09-10 17:24 | no | 0 | 30 s |
| Paraphrase | Perplexity Sonar Pro | sonar-pro | 2026-09-09 20:37 | yes | 20 | 7 s |
| Comparative | Claude Opus 5 | claude-opus-5 | 2026-09-09 20:43 | yes | 21 | 52 s |
| Comparative | Claude Opus 4.8 | claude-opus-4-8 | 2026-09-09 20:50 | yes | 41 | 345 s |
| Comparative | GPT-6 Astra | gpt-6-astra | 2026-09-09 20:52 | yes | 9 | 54 s |
| Comparative | GPT-5.6 Sol | gpt-5.6-sol | 2026-09-09 20:55 | yes | 10 | 55 s |
| Comparative | Gemini 3.1 Pro | gemini-3.1-pro-preview | 2026-09-10 17:26 | yes | 10 | 70 s |
| Comparative | Perplexity Sonar Pro | sonar-pro | 2026-09-09 20:50 | yes | 18 | 9 s |
| Budget constrained | Claude Opus 5 | claude-opus-5 | 2026-09-09 20:57 | yes | 43 | 52 s |
| Budget constrained | Claude Opus 4.8 | claude-opus-4-8 | 2026-09-09 20:59 | yes | 41 | 52 s |
| Budget constrained | GPT-6 Astra | gpt-6-astra | 2026-09-09 21:00 | yes | 4 | 26 s |
| Budget constrained | GPT-5.6 Sol | gpt-5.6-sol | 2026-09-10 00:37 | yes | 4 | 23 s |
| Budget constrained | Gemini 3.1 Pro | gemini-3.1-pro-preview | 2026-09-10 17:30 | yes | 15 | 109 s |
| Budget constrained | Perplexity Sonar Pro | sonar-pro | 2026-09-09 21:00 | yes | 20 | 5 s |
| Scale constrained | Claude Opus 5 | claude-opus-5 | 2026-09-09 21:04 | yes | 30 | 73 s |
| Scale constrained | Claude Opus 4.8 | claude-opus-4-8 | 2026-09-09 21:05 | no | 0 | 21 s |
| Scale constrained | GPT-6 Astra | gpt-6-astra | 2026-09-09 21:08 | yes | 5 | 43 s |
| Scale constrained | GPT-5.6 Sol | gpt-5.6-sol | 2026-09-09 21:10 | yes | 6 | 62 s |
| Scale constrained | Gemini 3.1 Pro | gemini-3.1-pro-preview | 2026-09-10 17:31 | no | 0 | 26 s |
| Scale constrained | Perplexity Sonar Pro | sonar-pro | 2026-09-09 21:06 | yes | 20 | 10 s |
| Negative framing | Claude Opus 5 | claude-opus-5 | 2026-09-09 21:13 | yes | 22 | 138 s |
| Negative framing | Claude Opus 4.8 | claude-opus-4-8 | 2026-09-09 21:18 | yes | 36 | 55 s |
| Negative framing | GPT-6 Astra | gpt-6-astra | 2026-09-09 21:20 | yes | 5 | 36 s |
| Negative framing | GPT-5.6 Sol | gpt-5.6-sol | 2026-09-09 21:22 | yes | 8 | 48 s |
| Negative framing | Gemini 3.1 Pro | gemini-3.1-pro-preview | 2026-09-10 18:40 | yes | 11 | 45 s |
| Negative framing | Perplexity Sonar Pro | sonar-pro | 2026-09-09 21:18 | yes | 18 | 10 s |
Normalization in this category
Every judgment call made between the raw labels and the numbers above, listed so it is visible and reversible.
ShowHide
Category-scoped readings
Agiloft read as Agiloft Contract Management Suite
Conga read as Conga CLM
Conga (formerly Apttus/Conga CLM) read as Conga CLM
Conga/Apttus read as Conga CLM
Coupa read as Coupa CLM
Icertis read as Icertis Contract Intelligence
Icertis (ICI) read as Icertis Contract Intelligence
SAP Ariba read as SAP Ariba Contracts
Workday (formerly Evisort) read as Workday Contract Intelligence
Unresolved, counted raw
None awaiting human review.
Discontinued, still offered
No shut-down product was recommended here.