On Page Navigation
On Page Navigation
Not one of these four publishes a price. Every pricing page on this hub is a form, a calculator or a request for a quote, and each of the four is quoted on a different thing. Ironclad prices on which products you take and who deploys them. Agiloft names three tiers and prints no rates, with implementation and support sold apart from the licence. Conga prices on how much of its wider commerce suite you buy. Juro prices on how many contracts you sign in a month. Four quotes, four unrelated meters, and no way at all to line them up before a sales call.
While the contracts still live in a shared drive, and before anyone has signed a platform deal
Every platform here will hold a template library, route an agreement through approvals, capture a signature and remind somebody before a renewal lapses. That much is settled across all four and none of them does it badly. Where they separate is in what you are being charged for and who does the work of turning it on. There are three questions worth settling before anybody books a demo.
1
Ironclad asks you to pick your products, pick who deploys them and pick your add ons, then request a custom quote. Agiloft names an Essential, an Advanced and a Premium plan, and the only place those names appear is the page description, because the page itself is a form. Conga prices contract management as one part of a suite that also sells document generation, quoting, billing and price optimisation, so what you pay turns on how much of that chain you take. Juro replaces the table with a calculator that asks how many contracts you process a month before it will tell you anything at all. Four vendors, zero published rates. Which of them is cheapest for you is a question nobody outside those four companies can answer today.
2
Juro is the clearest and the most unusual: it charges on contract volume, in bands running from fewer than twenty a month up to a thousand and over, and every plan carries unlimited users, unlimited workflows and unlimited templates. Nobody else here prices that way. Ironclad builds its number out of which products you take, whether you want the AI contract partner and the eSignature product alongside the core platform. Agiloft separates the licence from the implementation and again from the support plan, each with its own page and its own quote. Conga's figure moves with how many modules of its commerce platform you buy. If you are comparing these on cost, you are not comparing four prices. You are comparing four different questions about your own business.
3
Ironclad offers three routes and says so plainly: lead the deployment yourself, use its own legal engineers, or bring in one of its partners. Agiloft sells Implementation Services as a named service with a page of its own. Conga sells professional services and training the same way. Juro is gentler about it and frames the conversation as tailoring the support to how complex your workflows are, which is the same fact in a friendlier sentence. None of that is a criticism. Contract platforms genuinely do need shaping around how a business writes agreements, and a vendor pretending otherwise would be the one to worry about. It does mean the licence is not the whole cost, and on three of these four the rollout is quoted separately from it.
Every fact on this hub came off the vendor's own site on the day it was written, and where a vendor declines to publish something we say so rather than estimate it. That happens a great deal here. None of these four prints a rate, so nothing on this page claims to know what any of them will cost you, and any page that does claim to know is guessing. What can be compared is the shape of each purchase: what is bundled, what is an add on, what is a separate project, and what the platform is counting when it works out your bill. Then there is the question of who keeps the clause library honest two years later, and none of the four vendors here has a word to say about it.
VS
No Rate Published Anywhere
Priced By Product, Not Seat
Deployment Is Its Own Decision
Ironclad is the name most people in this category have already heard, and the product is strong enough that a legal team with real contract volume has good reasons to want it. This page is not going to argue you out of that. What it will point out is that the pricing page carries no price. It asks for three decisions and then a quote request. Which products you take, meaning the contract platform, the Jurist AI contract partner and the eSignature product. Who deploys it, whether that is your own team, Ironclad's own legal engineers, or one of its partners. And which extras you need, the API and integrations, additional instances, a richer success plan. Their own FAQ says some integrations are complimentary and some are add ons, then stops there. The company announced it had passed two hundred million dollars in annual recurring revenue in February, which is a fair guide to the size of customer it is built around.
Learn More
VS
Three Tiers, No Rates Shown
Implementation Is Sold Apart
Support Plans Are A Third Line
Agiloft is the closest thing on this hub to a conventional tiered product. Its pricing page describes an Essential plan, an Advanced plan and a Premium plan. It contains no figures whatsoever, and those three plan names are visible only in the page description rather than on the page itself, which is a form asking you to talk to sales. Two things sit outside the licence and each has a page of its own on the same site: Implementation Services, and Support Plans. Read that as the shape of the purchase rather than as an omission. You are buying a licence, a rollout and a support tier, quoted separately, and the licence alone will not tell you what a year costs. Agiloft calls itself enterprise contract lifecycle management in its own words, and the industries it leads with are financial services, healthcare, pharmaceuticals, manufacturing and energy.
Learn More
VS
One Module Of A Larger Suite
Priced Across The Whole Chain
Its Own Reviews Are Enterprise
Conga sells contract lifecycle management as one component of a wider commerce platform that also includes document generation, eSignature, configure price quote, billing, price management and price optimisation. Its argument is that those pieces are worth more joined up than bought apart, and if you already run Conga for quoting or billing that argument is a real one rather than a sales line. It is also why there is no single figure for the contract product: what you pay turns on how much of that chain you take. The product page is candid in a way the marketing may not have intended. All three customer quotes it prints are attributed to enterprise companies of more than a thousand employees. It integrates hard into Salesforce, Office and Dynamics, and it sells professional services and training as separate offerings again.
Learn More
VS
Priced By Contracts Per Month
Unlimited Users On Every Plan
Deep Integrations Cost Extra
Juro is the one here built for a company the size of the ones reading this, rather than for a legal department with a budget line of its own, and if you intend to buy a contract platform outright it is the one worth opening first. Its pricing page is a calculator instead of a table. It asks how many contracts you process each month, in bands from under twenty up to a thousand and above, which contract types you handle, which of the AI features you want, and which integrations you need. Their FAQ is unusually direct about the model. Every plan carries unlimited users, unlimited workflows and unlimited templates, and you are charged on volume rather than on headcount. The caveat sits in the same FAQ one answer further down: the deeper integrations, meaning Salesforce and HubSpot and Workday, cost more. Quotes come in dollars, pounds or euros, and there is a standing twenty percent discount for signing in the same month you ask for a demo.
Learn More
What the flat five hundred buys, and where it stops
The fee is five hundred a month, per organization. It covers building the template and clause library out of the agreements you actually send rather than a generic pack, defining the contract types and intake forms so a request arrives with the facts already attached, wiring the approval workflows to the people who genuinely need to approve rather than everyone who once asked to be copied, configuring Zoho Sign so execution is not a separate errand, setting obligation and renewal tracking with dates that reach a named person before they pass, connecting Zoho CRM and Zoho Writer so an agreement starts from the deal instead of from a blank page, setting the access control and the audit reporting, and administering the whole arrangement month to month. The Zoho Contracts licence is bought in your name, direct from Zoho. We do not resell it and we take no margin on it.
Here is where this page has to be careful. Zoho Contracts is not an enterprise contract lifecycle management platform and we are not going to dress it up as one. If you have a legal department, a procurement function and several thousand supplier agreements under active obligation management, one of the four above is the correct purchase and we are not in that conversation. There is also no honest price comparison available on this page, because not one of those four will say what it charges. We cannot claim to undercut a number nobody has published. What we can say is that ours is five hundred dollars, it is printed on the service page, and you can read it without booking anything. Our fee sits on top of a Zoho Contracts licence you buy separately. And if somebody here already owns the clause library and goes back to it unprompted, leave things as they are and put the money somewhere else.
Most contract libraries are an archive rather than a library. Twenty versions of one agreement in a shared drive, three of them nearly identical, one of them the version legal actually approved, and nobody able to say which. We start from the agreements you have sent in the last year, work out which clauses genuinely vary and which never do, and build the template set and the clause library from that. What comes out is usually smaller than what went in, and the useful part of the work is deciding what to leave out.
Three of the four above quote on something that grows as you do, whether that is products, modules or contracts a month, and the fourth quotes on all of it at once. Ours does not move. Five hundred a month covers the work whether you sign eight agreements this month or eighty, and the licence continues to be purchased from Zoho and not from us.
Contract administration fails silently. An auto renewal passes and the term extends another year on last year's rate. A clause legal replaced in March is still going out inside a template nobody updated. An obligation attached to a supplier agreement belongs to a person who changed jobs. Nothing reports a fault, because from the software's point of view nothing has gone wrong. We read the obligation and renewal reporting every cycle, check the templates still carry the language legal signed off, and tell you plainly when a contract type has stopped matching how you actually work.
How do you compare four contract platforms when none of them publishes a price?
You stop asking what they cost, because none of them will tell you, and start asking what each one is charging for. Ironclad quotes on which products you take and who deploys them. Agiloft quotes a licence, then an implementation, then a support plan. Conga quotes on how much of its commerce suite you buy. Juro quotes on contracts per month, with users unlimited. So settle four of your own facts before you book anything: roughly how many agreements you sign in a month, how many of those are genuinely negotiated rather than sent as standard, whether you already own Salesforce or a Conga product, and who inside the business would run the platform once it is live. Those four answers determine which of these vendors will be fair to you. Not one of the four will run that arithmetic on your behalf, and for most of them the honest answer costs them a deal.
How does a contract platform decision actually go wrong?
Rarely at the point of purchase, and almost always about a year in. The platform gets chosen carefully, configured by somebody who cared, and after that belongs to no one in particular. The template legal revised never made it back into the system. Two contract types exist because the second person could not find the first one. An approval chain still routes to a manager who moved departments in spring. Renewal alerts arrive in a shared mailbox nobody reads. At no point did anything actually break. It just quietly ceased to be anyone's responsibility, and a contract system in that state is worse than a folder, because everyone believes it is being looked after.
Whose name is the Zoho Contracts licence in?
Yours. The Zoho Contracts subscription is purchased by you, under your own name, and billed to you by Zoho. We hold administrator access inside it and at no point stand between you and your own account. Walk away from us tomorrow and the templates, the clause library, the executed agreements and the full audit history all stay exactly where they are. Across everything we run, Zoho Assist alone is the service where the licence stays on our side.
Would we be better off buying one of these four and running it ourselves?
Plenty of companies genuinely would be, and it is better to read that here than to discover it once the contract has been countersigned. If you sign a few hundred agreements a month across several jurisdictions and you have a legal operations person to own the platform, one of these four plus that person will beat any retainer we could offer. Juro in particular is worth an hour of your time before you speak to us, because it is priced on the thing you would actually be buying. It becomes worth paying somebody else on the day nobody in the building can say which version of the master services agreement is the current one.
So which of the four is cheapest?
Nobody can tell you, and anyone who does is inventing it. Not one of these vendors publishes a rate, and each prices on a different variable, so there is no arithmetic that produces a ranking. What you can do is work out which variable is smallest for you. Signing few contracts but with a lot of people touching them: Juro's volume banding with unlimited users is likely to read well. Already running Conga for quoting or billing: adding the contract module is cheaper than buying a platform standalone anywhere else. Wanting a licence and nothing more: Agiloft at least separates implementation out, so you can see what you are declining. And wanting to know any of this before you speak to a salesperson: none of them will oblige, which is itself a fact worth weighing.
What actually happens when nobody looks at the contract setup after go live?
Nothing visible, which is exactly the problem, because a contract system in decline does not report a single fault along the way. Renewals extend on terms nobody re read. Templates drift out of step with the clause language legal actually wants. Obligations sit against people who left. There is no support tier that covers this, on any of the four. Agiloft sells support plans as a separate line, Ironclad sells an enhanced success plan as an add on, Conga sells professional services and training, and Juro tailors the help to how complex your workflows are. All of that assists your team in operating the software, which is an entirely separate matter from whether anybody will warn you the software has stopped describing how you contract. With us, reading the obligation and renewal reporting at a set interval is covered by the fee, which makes catching it our obligation rather than another item on your list.
Do we have to move every contract type across at once?
No, and the companies that phase it land better than the ones that flip everything across in a single weekend. The order that tends to work is to begin with the agreement you send most often, then anything with a renewal date falling inside the next quarter, then the rest as they come up for signature. The first group carries almost all the volume and the last carries almost all the tidying, and a decent share of the old agreement types prove not to need a template at all, having been used twice in three years.
Can you take over a Zoho Contracts setup somebody else built?
Yes. What it turns into, in practice, is a rebuild wearing the word cleanup. We read through whatever is configured today, surface the two templates that duplicate each other and the approval chain that has been failing quietly, find the clauses that say the same thing in three versions under two names, and decide which one takes precedence where they contradict each other. That last decision is usually where most of the hours go. An inherited setup will tell you precisely what was configured and absolutely nothing about the reasoning behind any of it.
Realistically, how long does this take to stand up?
Most of them land inside four to six weeks, and it runs longer wherever legal and sales still disagree about who owns an approval. Configuring Zoho Contracts itself takes days. What eats the calendar is agreeing which agreements are standard and which are genuinely negotiated, getting the clause language signed off once rather than three times, and then the first month of live agreements, which needs a complete cycle behind it before anybody declares this done.
We already have somebody who owns contracts. What would you add?
Possibly nothing at all, and reaching that conclusion on a first call is a fine outcome from where we sit. Somebody who genuinely owns this will beat a monthly retainer without much effort, because they are in the detail weekly and know which agreements carry risk. The question that decides it is whether the work is truly on their list. Reviewing a clause library in a quarter where every contract got signed and nobody complained is exactly the kind of work that goes on looking safe to defer by another three months, and then another three.
When would you tell us not to hire you?
Two of them, and both come up often enough that we tend to answer before the question has finished. If you sign a handful of agreements a year and they are all the same one, you do not need a contract platform at all, let alone somebody to run one for you, and a well named folder is a perfectly respectable answer. And if you are contracting at the scale these four vendors are built for, with a legal team and an operations lead already on the payroll, buy one of them and staff it properly. We would rather say so on a first call than once contracts have been signed.
What if the software turns out not to be the problem?
You will hear it from us before an invoice exists, because surfacing exactly that is what the fit review is there to do. Often the real problem is that nobody has agreed which agreements need legal review and which do not, or that sales and finance each believe the other one approves discounts, or that contracts are slow because eleven people sit on the approval list and four of them were added by accident. Each of those is worth confronting before anything else, and no platform on this page touches any of them.
What do you charge, in plain numbers?
Five hundred dollars a month, per organization. That number is printed on the Managed Zoho Contracts service page, and it stands regardless of how many agreements you sign, how many people touch them or how many contract types you run. Your Zoho Contracts subscription is a separate purchase, made directly with Zoho, and it remains in your name.
What happens if we want to end the arrangement?
Thirty days of notice closes it out. Nothing moves, because the subscription was always yours. Administrator access comes back to you, and we leave behind a written account of what each template and contract type is for, why the approval chains are shaped as they are, and where the obligation dates came from, so nobody has to reconstruct the reasoning afterwards. We also write down what we would have done next.
What do you need from us to start?
The agreements you send most often, with the last signed copy of each. Who approves what today and who is supposed to. The contract types you already know are missing. And your renewal dates for the next two quarters, or the honest admission that nobody has them written down, which is common and is not a problem. Those lists always turn up half finished, which is completely normal. What they give us is the shape of the work, and the fit review supplies whatever is missing.
