Contract Management (CLM)
Concord
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Concord Worldwide Inc. · www.concord.app
Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Link to this page
Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds.
The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where
that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.
Concord at a glance
- Vendor
- Concord Worldwide Inc.
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Concord 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Concord, a contract management platform from Concord Worldwide Inc., USA, scores strongest on negotiation and approval at 6-7: browser redlining, unlimited free counterparty guests, a Word and Google Docs round-trip returning tracked changes, and approval steps conditional on contract duration or amount are documented. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 Oct 2026 to 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Concord, a contract management platform from Concord Worldwide Inc., USA, scores strongest on negotiation and approval at 6-7: browser redlining, unlimited free counterparty guests, a Word and Google Docs round-trip returning tracked changes, and approval steps conditional on contract duration or amount are documented. Authoring and templates scores 4-6 on a clause library holding an ideal position plus three fallbacks and self-serve intake from legal-approved templates, though template center samples such as Articles of Incorporation are US-style documents. Repository and obligations scores 5-7 on five deadline types recalculated on renewal and OCR search; the only reminder evidenced is a weekly email, and no public information shows obligations tracked to a named owner. Integration and exit scores 5-6 behind an open API and SSO over SAML 2.0, LDAP and Azure AD. The weak ends are sovereignty and pricing transparency, both 0-2: data residency and subprocessor exposure are not confirmed on the vendor's own pages, no price figure appears, and the route in is booking a demo. AI extraction control holds at 4, and weighted totals range from 3.8 to 5.0.
Speaks for it
- Real-time browser redlining with unlimited free counterparty guests, plus a Word and Google Docs round-trip that brings tracked changes back
- Approval workflows with conditional steps on smart fields such as contract duration or amount, inherited by drafts from templates
- Clause library storing an ideal position plus three fallbacks, with automatic routing of new clauses for review and bulk updates with a full library export
- Five deadline types including termination notice deadlines, recalculated on renewal, with OCR-backed full-text search and per-folder access rights
- Contractual commitment in the terms that customer data and output will not be used to train its AI models, with AI-extracted fields marked by a purple bolt icon and editable
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores span 0 to 2, with the contracting party Concord Worldwide Inc., USA per its commercial terms, data residency and subprocessor exposure not confirmed on the vendor's own captured pages, although one captured page says customers can choose the country where their data is stored
- No price figure appears on the captured pricing page, which names tiers and feature placement and routes buyers to booking a demo
- Termination terms promise a copy of data within 30 days in a format of our choosing, with no public information on exporting versions, approvals or the audit trail
- No public information states the e-signature's eIDAS level; the captured signature page describes sealing with the FIPS SHA-1 hash algorithm
- Deadline alerts are weekly emails, with no public information on escalation to named owners or on obligations tracked to an owner with status
Best for
- You need a quote-to-signature flow where contracts auto-populate from Salesforce or HubSpot deal records and counterparties redline and sign with free guest access in the same platform
- Your standard agreements route through approvals triggered by contract amount or duration, inherited from legal-approved templates
- You are migrating a legacy archive and want unlimited.zip bulk upload plus renewal and termination-notice deadlines in list and calendar views
- Your business teams need self-serve contract creation on legal-approved templates while new clauses route to legal for review
Avoid if
- Your purchase review requires confirmed data residency and a subprocessor list including AI and OCR providers — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You must build a budget from public pricing before any vendor engagement — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- Your exit plan requires versions, approvals and the audit trail on departure — the terms commit to a copy within 30 days in a format of our choosing
- You rely on deadline handling beyond weekly email alerts, such as escalation to named owners
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Drafting, templates & clause library | 3 of 5 |
| Negotiation, redlining & approval | 3.5 of 5 |
| Repository, deadlines & obligations | 3 of 5 |
| AI extraction & review transparency | 2 of 5 |
| Integrations, signature & exit | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0.5 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 0.5 of 5 |
Negotiation, redlining & approval
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting from draft to agreed text with a counterparty and through internal sign-off: redlining in Word and in the browser, external collaboration, version comparison, approval workflows, and a record of who approved which version.
0 — No negotiation support; versions are emailed back and forth outside the system.
3 — Comments and a version list inside the system, but no redline comparison, no Word round-trip, and approvals handled by email.
5 — Redlining with tracked changes, a Word add-in or round-trip that keeps changes, counterparty access without a licence, version comparison, and configurable approval steps by contract type or value.
8 — Conditional approval routing (value, deviation from playbook, risk), parallel and sequential approvers with delegation, an audit trail of every change and approval per version, and internal comments kept separate from what the counterparty sees.
10 — Negotiation is an auditable record: every concession traceable to who proposed and who approved it, approval rules an auditor or the board can read, negotiation duration reported per contract type, and the full history exportable with the signed version.
The General Counsel
Browser redlining, a Word and Google Docs round-trip that brings tracked changes back, version comparison and revert, unlimited free counterparty guests, and approval workflows with steps conditional on amount or duration inherited from templates. We found no public information on parallel and sequential approvers with delegation, internal comments kept separate from the counterparty's view, or an approval record tied to each version, so it stops short of an auditable concession trail. 5 7 8 14
The Procurement Analyst
Real-time redlining with unlimited free external guests, a Word and Google Docs round-trip that brings tracked changes back, version comparison, and approval steps conditioned on smart fields such as contract duration or amount are all evidenced, alongside a comprehensive audit trail of every access, action and signature per participant. We found no public information on approver delegation, on routing triggered by deviation from approved wording, or on reported negotiation duration per contract type. 7 8 14
The Sales Ops Owner
Approval steps can be conditional on smart fields such as contract duration or amount — exactly the value-and-discount routing my team closes standard deals on — with individual or team approvers, automatic notification, workflow inheritance from templates, and third parties able to sign in the same flow. Redlining, tracked changes back from Word and Google Docs, free counterparty guests and version comparison are all documented; we found no public information on approver delegation or internal comments kept separate from the counterparty view. 1 7 8 14
The IT Integrator
Real-time redlining in the browser, a Word and Google Docs round-trip that brings tracked changes back, unlimited free counterparty guests, version comparison with revert, and unlimited approval workflows with conditional steps on contract duration or amount, plus a documented audit trail of access, actions and signatures. I found no public information on approver delegation, on an approval audit trail per version, or on keeping internal discussion separate from what the counterparty sees. 1 7 8 14
The Data Protection Officer
Real-time browser redlining, a Word and Google Docs round-trip that brings tracked changes back in, unlimited free counterparty guests, version comparison, and approval workflows with conditional steps on amount or duration are all documented, alongside an audit trail of access, actions and signatures. We found no public information on delegation between approvers, deviation-from-playbook routing, or keeping internal comments separate from what the counterparty sees. 7 8 14
The Skeptic
Browser redlining, free counterparty guests, version comparison and conditional approvals on amount or duration are all on the record, and the vendor states that comments and tracked changes come back from Word and Google Docs. What I cannot see is whether internal comments stay separate from what the counterparty sees, or whether the audit trail records who approved which version rather than only who touched and signed a document. 8 7 1 14
Repository, deadlines & obligations
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Knowing what has been signed and what it requires: a searchable repository with metadata, notice periods and renewal dates captured and reminded, obligations tracked to an owner, access rights by department, and reporting on the portfolio.
0 — A file store with folders; no metadata, no dates and no reminders.
3 — Metadata fields and an end date with an email reminder, but notice periods and auto-renewal are not modelled and reminders go to one person.
5 — Notice periods, renewal terms and end dates modelled as fields, reminders with escalation to named owners, full-text search including scanned contracts (OCR), and access rights per department or contract type.
8 — Obligations and milestones tracked with owners and status, contract hierarchies (framework, amendments, orders) linked, reminders logged so a missed deadline can be traced, and portfolio reports on renewals, value and counterparties.
10 — The repository is a system of record a company can be audited on: every deadline derived from a cited clause, reminders and their acknowledgements logged, retention and deletion rules per contract type, and a portfolio view a CFO can use for commitments and cancellations.
The General Counsel
Termination notice deadlines, renewals, expirations and term endings are modelled as first-class deadline types with dates recalculated on renewal, alongside full-text search with OCR, folder-level access grants and linked amendments. We found no public information on obligations tracked to a named owner with status, reminders logged so a missed deadline can be traced, or portfolio reporting on commitments; the weekly deadline email is the only reminder evidenced. 1 9 10 11 10
The Procurement Analyst
Five deadline types including termination notice deadlines and renewals are modelled, recalculated on renewal, searchable with OCR, and viewable in list and calendar form with total agreement value — enough to see what can be cancelled in the next ninety days — and AI extraction captures the non-renewal notice period as a field. We found no public information on reminders escalating to a named owner, on reminders being logged so a missed deadline can be traced, or on obligations tracked to an owner with status; alerts are described as weekly deadline emails and AI-generated reports. 1 9 10 11
The Sales Ops Owner
Five deadline types including termination notice and renewal are modelled, deadlines recalculate on renewal, OCR search, tags and per-folder access rights are documented, and documents link to amendments. We found no public information on obligations tracked to a named owner with status, or on reminders logged and escalated, so it stays a deadline list rather than a commitments view. 9 10 11 10
The IT Integrator
Five deadline types are modelled including termination-notice deadlines, OCR full-text search and typo-tolerant global search cover scanned contracts, permissions run per folder, amendments link to their contracts, and deadlines recalculate on renewal. Reminders are weekly email alerts only — I found no public information on escalation to named owners, on obligations tracked with an owner and status, on logged reminder acknowledgements, or on retention rules per contract type. 1 9 10 11 10
The Data Protection Officer
Five deadline types including renewal and termination notice periods, OCR-backed full-text search, linked amendments and contracts, per-folder access rights, and calendar and list portfolio views with total agreement value are documented in depth. We found no public information on obligations assigned to an owner with status, reminder escalation to named owners, or logged acknowledgements that would let a missed deadline be traced. 1 9 10 10
The Skeptic
Five deadline types including termination notice, renewal recalculation, OCR search and folder-level access rights are the core of a real repository. But deadlines surface as weekly email alerts with no evidenced escalation to named owners, obligations are 'explained' by AI rather than tracked to an owner with status, and I found no public information on reminder logs that would let me trace a missed notice after the fact. 10 10 9 11 1
AI extraction & review transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the AI that extracts dates and clauses or reviews a draft is disclosed, verifiable and controllable: named model provider and processing location, no training on customer contracts, extracted values shown with their source passage, and features the customer can switch off. A product without AI features is judged on stating so.
0 — AI extraction or review is marketed with no statement of the model, where it runs, or what happens to the contract text.
3 — AI features described as a benefit with a general privacy assurance, but no model provider named, no statement on training, and extracted values shown without their source.
5 — The model provider or subprocessor named, a stated commitment not to train on customer contracts, extracted values linked to the source passage for confirmation, and AI features that can be disabled per account.
8 — AI processing available within the EU, each AI feature documented with its purpose and inputs, accuracy or confidence shown per extracted field, review results traceable to the playbook rule that triggered them, and an EU AI Act position published.
10 — AI is an accountable assistant: customer choice of model or EU-only processing, no retention of contract text by the model provider stated contractually, every AI-suggested value logged with who confirmed or corrected it, and AI off by default until the customer enables it.
The General Counsel
The terms commit contractually not to train AI models on customer data, and extracted values carry a purple-bolt marker, remain editable, and are stored as reviewable suggestions next to manual entries, with AI trust FAQs covering opt-out and accuracy. We found no public information naming the model provider or subprocessor, the processing location, extracted values linked to their source passage, or an EU AI Act position. 1 4 11 12
The Procurement Analyst
The terms state Concord will not use customer data or output to train its AI models, extracted values carry a purple bolt marker and are stored, editable and shown beside existing values, and an AI ethics page with trust FAQs and human accountability is published. We found no public information on the model provider or where AI processing runs, on extracted values linked to their source passage, on per-field confidence, or on an EU AI Act position. 4 11 12
The Sales Ops Owner
The terms commit that Concord will not use customer data or output to train its AI models, AI-generated values are marked with a purple bolt, remain editable and are stored as reviewable suggestions, and the trust page describes opt-out options for how AI interacts with contract data. We found no public information naming the model provider or processing location, and no evidence of extracted values linked back to their source passage. 4 11 12
The IT Integrator
The terms state contractually that customer data will not be used to train its AI models, AI-suggested values carry a purple-bolt marker beside manually entered ones, suggestions are stored and editable, and an opt-out is offered — better than a bare privacy assurance. But no model provider is named, no processing location is given, extracted values are not shown with their source passage, and extraction runs automatically on upload for AI-enabled plans, the opposite of off by default. 4 11 12
The Data Protection Officer
The terms state contractually that customer data is not used to train its AI, extracted fields are marked with a bolt icon, remain editable and stored for review, and an AI ethics page and trust FAQ exist. We found no public information on which model provider receives contract text, where AI and OCR processing run, or a published EU AI Act position; extraction runs automatically on upload for AI-enabled plans, extracted values are not shown with their source passage, and related features list an MCP server with ChatGPT and Claude with no stated provider terms. 2 4 10 11 12
The Skeptic
The terms bind Concord not to train its models on customer contracts, and AI-extracted fields are marked with a purple bolt, editable and re-runnable — good hygiene. But no model provider or processing location is named, no accuracy figure is stated anywhere, extraction runs automatically on upload for AI-enabled plans rather than off by default, and extracted values are never shown against their source passage, so a notice period buried in an amendment still has to be checked by hand. 4 11 12
Integrations, signature & exit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How contracts connect to the rest of the company and leave it again: CRM, procurement and ERP integration, e-signature (and which eIDAS level), SSO, an API, and a documented export of documents together with their metadata, versions and audit trail.
0 — No integrations, no API and no stated export; contracts can only be downloaded one by one.
3 — One CRM or storage integration and a bulk download of files, but metadata, versions and audit trail stay behind.
5 — A documented API, integrations with named CRM and storage systems, e-signature integrated with the level stated (simple, advanced or qualified), SSO, and a bulk export of documents with their metadata.
8 — Maintained integrations with systems common in DACH (SAP, Microsoft 365, Salesforce, DATEV-connected or procurement tools), qualified electronic signature available, webhooks, SCIM, and an export that includes versions, approvals and audit trail in an open format.
10 — Exit is designed in: a versioned API with a deprecation policy, a documented migration path in and out with the format stated, deletion after contract end confirmed, and the full repository — files, metadata, obligations and history — handed back without a professional-services fee.
The General Counsel
An open API, webhooks, SSO over SAML 2.0, LDAP and Azure AD, auto-export of signed documents to Dropbox, Box and Google Drive, and a stated download of originals with exported metadata at any time and on account closure. We found no public information on an eIDAS signature level, SCIM, or an export carrying versions, approvals and audit trail, and termination delivery is "in a format of our choosing," which I would redline on sight. 3 8 10 13 14
The Procurement Analyst
An open API, webhooks, SSO through SAML, LDAP and Azure Active Directory, named integrations with Salesforce, HubSpot, Google Drive, Box, Dropbox and Zapier, and export of contract originals with their metadata at any time cover most of what a buyer needs at this level. Two questions stay open: we found no public information on which e-signature level is delivered — nothing on eIDAS classification — and on termination the terms promise a copy of the data within 30 days "in a format of our choosing", with no public information on exporting versions, approvals or the audit trail. 3 13 14
The Sales Ops Owner
An open API, webhooks, SAML/LDAP/Azure AD single sign-on, and Salesforce and HubSpot integrations that populate contracts from the CRM record cover my quote-to-signature path, with legally binding e-signature in the same flow and a document audit trail. We found no public information on the signature's eIDAS level or on SCIM, and on exit the terms promise a data copy within 30 days in a format of the vendor's choosing, which is not the open-format handover I would want. 3 8 13 14
The IT Integrator
There is an open API, webhooks, SAML 2.0/LDAP/Azure AD single sign-on, maintained Salesforce and HubSpot integrations, auto-export of signed documents to Dropbox, Box or Google Drive, and a metadata export available at any time. The eIDAS level of the signature is not stated on the captured pages (a FIPS SHA-1 seal is not a qualified signature), I found no public information on SCIM, a versioned API with a deprecation policy, or SAP, and the termination export is quoted as a copy of my data in a format of the company's choosing — with no commitment that versions, approvals or audit trail come back with it. 3 8 13 14
The Data Protection Officer
An open API, webhooks, SSO via SAML, LDAP and Azure AD, named CRM and storage integrations including Salesforce and HubSpot, and a bulk export of document originals with their metadata are documented. The eIDAS level of the built-in signature is not stated, and on termination the copy is provided in a format of the company's choosing; we found no public information on export of versions, approvals or the audit trail, or on SCIM. 3 13 14
The Skeptic
An open API, webhooks, SAML/LDAP/Azure AD, Salesforce, HubSpot, Drive/Box/Dropbox and a claimed export of documents with their metadata is a solid foundation. But the signature page never states a level against eIDAS, the exit clause promises my data back within 30 days 'in a format of our choosing', and I found no public information on exporting versions and audit trail, or on SAP, Microsoft 365 or DATEV-class connections beyond a Zapier workaround. 13 14 3 1
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity is, where contracts and their extracted data are hosted, and who the subprocessors are — including the AI and OCR providers the text is passed to. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted with care here because a contract repository holds a company's most confidential commitments and those of its counterparties.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and AI processing of unclear location.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent, or AI and OCR processing run outside the EU without saying so.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — AI models, OCR, email delivery, support — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published including AI and OCR providers with locations, and a DPA covering contract data as the customer's processing.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, AI processing within the EU on providers the customer can see, certifications (ISO 27001, BSI C5 or equivalent) published.
The General Counsel
The contracting party is a US company per its commercial terms; we found no public information on where contracts are hosted, which subprocessors — including the AI and OCR providers the text is passed to — sit in the chain, or where AI processing runs. The one mitigating capture says customers can choose the country where data is stored; we found no public information on named hosting infrastructure, an EU hosting standard, or certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5. 3 4 14
The Procurement Analyst
The contracting party is Concord Worldwide Inc. of the USA, support hours run 8am to 5pm US Central Time, and the privacy posture is built on CCPA language and the EU-US Data Privacy Framework. We found no public information on hosting location, on subprocessors including any AI or OCR providers, or on where AI processing runs; the only related statement is that customers can choose the country where their data is stored. 3 4 14
The Sales Ops Owner
The contracting entity is a US company and we found no public information on subprocessors, named hosting infrastructure, or where AI and OCR processing run; the only European-facing statement found is that customers can choose the country where their data is stored. 3 4 14
The IT Integrator
The contracting party is Concord Worldwide Inc., USA per its commercial terms, and hosting, ownership and the subprocessor list — including any AI or OCR provider — are all unconfirmed on the vendor's own captured pages. A Data Privacy Framework contact address with a 45-day response window points to a US processor handling European personal data, and the marketing line that you can choose the country where your data is stored is not confirmed anywhere as EU-standard hosting. 3 14
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting party is Concord Worldwide Inc. in the USA, and the privacy policy is built around the Data Privacy Framework, not a European arrangement. We found no public information on the hosting location beyond a marketing statement that you can choose the storage country, no published subprocessor list naming the AI and OCR providers that receive contract text, no DPA covering the counterparties' personal data in customer contracts, and no certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5. For a system holding a company's most confidential commitments, that silence decides it. 3 4 14
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is a US company per its own terms, I found no public information on subprocessors including the AI and OCR providers the contract text is passed to, and where extraction is processed is unstated. One captured page offers choosing the country of storage while the sourcing marks residency as not confirmed on the vendor's pages; for a repository holding a company's and its counterparties' most confidential commitments, that leaves nearly everything a European buyer would verify unverified. 4 14 3
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: the pricing basis (per user, per contract, per module), which features sit in which tier, add-ons for AI, e-signature volume or integrations, onboarding and migration fees, and the minimum term.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price exists, but the pricing basis (users, contracts, modules) or which features sit in which tier is unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with the pricing basis and main limits given, but at least one commonly needed piece (AI features, signature volume, integrations, extra users or onboarding) is unpriced.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with its basis and limits, add-on prices listed, onboarding and migration costs stated, minimum term and VAT treatment given.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given number of users, contracts and signatures, with every add-on, overage and implementation fee published.
The General Counsel
The captured pricing page publishes which features sit in which of three tiers and states unlimited storage on all plans, but we found no public information on any price figure, the pricing basis, add-ons, onboarding fees or the minimum term — demo booking is the evidenced path to a number. I cannot compute an invoice from these pages, and a buyer should not have to book a demo to learn one. 2 7 9
The Procurement Analyst
The pricing page names its tiers and lists which features sit where — AI Copilot and extraction on Essentials, the clause library on Enterprise — but no figure of any kind appears and the way forward is booking a demo. We found no public information on prices, on the pricing basis beyond an FAQ distinguishing users, viewers and signers, or on add-on, onboarding and minimum-term costs, so an annual invoice is not computable from public pages. 2 7
The Sales Ops Owner
The pricing page publishes feature lists per tier — AI Copilot and extraction, unlimited e-signatures and unlimited documents on the entry tier — plus an FAQ on user versus viewer versus signer, but we found no public price figures anywhere, so I cannot put a number in next year's budget and every engagement starts with a demo. 2
The IT Integrator
The pricing page names the tiers and says which features sit in each — Essentials with AI Copilot, extraction and unlimited signatures, Business with the CRM and storage integrations, Enterprise with clause library and the Open API — but I found no public price figures at all, no pricing basis per user or per contract, no minimum term, and no onboarding or migration costs. Even the question of whether AI is included on all subscriptions is raised without a captured answer, so no annual invoice is computable from the captured pages. 2 4 9
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pricing page names tiers and lists which features sit in each, and an FAQ raises whether AI is included on all subscriptions, but no prices appear anywhere we captured. We found no public information on tier prices, the pricing basis, add-on costs for AI or signature volume, onboarding and migration fees, the minimum term or VAT treatment, and getting started runs through booking a demo. 2 6
The Skeptic
The pricing page shows which features sit in which tier, but I found no prices, pricing basis, minimum term or add-on costs on the captured pages — even whether AI is included is posed as a question with no captured answer, and the route in is 'Book a demo'. The annual invoice is not computable from public information alone. 2 7
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Concord
Is Concord European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Concord as Rest of world.
Where does Concord store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Concord have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Concord?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Tomorro (2.5/5), Precisely (2.5/5) and fynk (2.5/5) highest among the other 19 Contract Management (CLM) products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Precisely (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Concord alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 1 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency, Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 10 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 8 integrations facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 8 support facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 data fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 hosting fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.concord.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.concord.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.concord.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.concord.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Drafting, templates & clause library — found from sitemap www.concord.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Drafting, templates & clause library — found from sitemap www.concord.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Negotiation, redlining & approval — found from sitemap www.concord.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Negotiation, redlining & approval — found from sitemap www.concord.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Repository, deadlines & obligations — found from sitemap www.concord.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Repository, deadlines & obligations — found from sitemap help.concord.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 AI extraction & review transparency — found from sitemap help.concord.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 AI extraction & review transparency — found from sitemap www.concord.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Integrations, signature & exit — found from sitemap www.concord.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Integrations, signature & exit — found from sitemap www.concord.app Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →