Contract Management (CLM)
Conga CLM
Rest of world Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Conga Corporation · conga.com
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.
Conga CLM at a glance
- Vendor
- Conga Corporation
- 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 Conga CLM 2/5, the mean of 6 judges. Conga CLM earns its best marks for drafting: authoring and templates scores cluster at 6, with conditional clauses, a fallback clause library, playbook-driven clause swapping without legal, and templates that update automatically when clauses change all evidenced. 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
Conga CLM earns its best marks for drafting: authoring and templates scores cluster at 6, with conditional clauses, a fallback clause library, playbook-driven clause swapping without legal, and templates that update automatically when clauses change all evidenced. Negotiation and approval, repository and obligations, and integration and exit score 5 to 6, resting on AI redlining endpoints, configurable approval routing, a searchable role-based repository with obligation alerts and renewal flagging, a documented public REST API, and named Salesforce, Microsoft Word, Office and Dynamics connections. The judges found no public information on notice periods as modelled fields or an audit trail of who approved which version. Their scores sit within a single point of each other on every criterion; on AI extraction control, at 4 to 5, some credit the contractual no-training commitments while others weigh the unnamed model and unstated processing location. Sovereignty scores sit at 0: Conga Corporation of Broomfield, Colorado, with hosting, contracting entity and subprocessors unknown. Persona-weighted totals span 3.6 to 5.0; the captured pricing page shows only a consent-gated form.
Speaks for it
- Conditional clauses, a fallback clause library and playbook-driven clause swapping let sales and procurement draft without legal intervention
- A documented public REST API covers contracts, clauses, obligations, reviews and templates
- E-signature runs through Conga Sign, Adobe Sign and OneSpan, with counterparties able to sign without a subscription
- The AI addendum contractually bars training on customer AI inputs and outputs and on third-party foundational and global models
- Obligation and milestone tracking with automated alerts and automatic renewal flagging sits on a searchable repository with role-based access controls
Held against it
- Sovereignty scored 0, with hosting location, contracting entity, ownership and subprocessors unknown on the captured pages for this Broomfield, Colorado vendor
- We found no public information naming the model that processes contract text, where processing runs, or extracted values shown with their source passage
- The documented export runs a query on a single object type to Excel or CSV, and we found no public information on exporting documents together with versions, approvals and audit trail
- The e-signature's eIDAS level is not stated, and we found no public information on SSO, webhooks or SCIM
- The only documented reminder schedule nudges signers about pending signatures, and we found no public information on notice periods as modelled fields or OCR of scanned contracts
Best for
- You want sales and procurement teams drafting from pre-approved templates and playbooks without legal in every loop
- Your team builds its own integrations against a documented public REST API and works inside Salesforce, Microsoft Word, Office or Dynamics
- You already use Conga CPQ and want pricing, terms and configurations flowing into contracts
- You want AI data handling committed in contract form rather than marketing prose
Avoid if
- You must verify EU hosting, a European contracting entity or a named subprocessor list before signing — the captured pages leave hosting, ownership and subprocessors unknown
- You need a full exit export carrying documents with their versions, approvals and audit trail, not query results in Excel or CSV
- You must know which AI model reads your contracts and where it processes — we found no public information naming the model actually used
- You require approvals routed by deal value with an audit trail of who approved which version — we found no public information on either
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Drafting, templates & clause library | 3 of 5 |
| Negotiation, redlining & approval | 2.5 of 5 |
| Repository, deadlines & obligations | 2.5 of 5 |
| AI extraction & review transparency | 2 of 5 |
| Integrations, signature & exit | 2.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 0 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
AI reviewing and redlining through an authoring API, named Microsoft Word and Salesforce integration, counterparties able to sign without a licence, configurable approval routing, and reported negotiation duration give me a credible draft-to-signature path. We found no public information on conditional approval routing by value or risk, delegation, or an audit trail of who approved which version — the approval-on-record discipline I insist on. 1 7 8 13
The Procurement Analyst
AI reviewing and redlining, a named Microsoft Word connection, configurable approval routing and reporting on negotiation duration are evidenced, and counterparties sign without a subscription. I found no public information on version comparison, approvals routed by contract value or deviation, or an audit trail of who approved which version. 1 7 8 13
The Sales Ops Owner
AI reviewing and redlining with preview, check-in and risk endpoints, configurable approval routing with visibility into where each contract stands, and counterparties who sign without a licence put this at the middle level. We found no public information on version comparison, a Word round-trip that keeps tracked changes, or approvals routed by discount or deal value — the piece my team needs most. 1 7 8 13
The IT Integrator
AI reviewing and redlining with documented risk, preview and check-in endpoints, configurable approval routing, counterparty signing without a licence, and reporting that includes negotiation duration are all shown. I found no public information on tracked-change redlining, version comparison, a Word round-trip beyond naming Microsoft Word as part of the tech stack, an audit trail of approvals per version, or delegation. 1 7 8 13
The Data Protection Officer
AI reviewing and redlining is evidenced down to API endpoints for previewing updated content, publishing based on an AI suggestion and retrieving redline risks, alongside configurable approval routing and reporting on approval time, cycle time and negotiation duration. I found no public information on a Word round-trip that keeps changes, on counterparty access for redlining without a licence (only signature recipients may sign without a subscription), on version comparison, or on an audit trail of who approved which version. 1 7 8 13
The Skeptic
AI redlining, automated approvals, configurable routing, a reported negotiation duration and connections to Microsoft Word and Salesforce are evidenced, and recipients can sign without a subscription. But the captured pages say nothing about whether tracked changes survive a Word round-trip, and we found no public information on version comparison, counterparty redlining access, delegation, or an audit trail of who approved which version. 1 7 8 13
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
A centralized searchable repository with role-based access controls, obligation and milestone tracking with automated alerts, automatic renewal flagging, and dashboards on status, cycle times and risk exposure cover the core portfolio duties. We found no public information on notice periods modelled as fields, OCR of scanned contracts, escalation of reminders to named owners, or portfolio reports on value and counterparties. 1 7 14
The Procurement Analyst
A central searchable repository with role-based access, obligation and milestone tracking, automated alerts on key dates and renewal windows, and automatic renewal flagging are all evidenced. But the notice periods and auto-renewal terms I run my portfolio on are not shown as modelled fields, and I found no public information on reminders escalating to a named owner, OCR of scanned contracts, or portfolio reporting by value and counterparty — the only documented reminder schedule concerns chasing signatures. 1 7 10 14
The Sales Ops Owner
A searchable repository with role-based access controls, automated alerts for key dates, renewal windows and obligations, automatic renewal and milestone flagging, and dashboards on status and cycle times cover the middle ground. We found no public information on notice periods, escalation to named owners, full-text search of scanned contracts, obligation owners with status, or contract hierarchies. 1 7
The IT Integrator
A centralized searchable repository with role-based access controls, automated alerts for key dates, renewal windows and obligations, obligations as a first-class object in the public API, and dashboards for status, cycle times and risk exposure are evidenced. I found no public information on notice periods as modelled fields, reminder escalation to named owners, full-text search with OCR, contract hierarchies linking framework and amendments, or logged reminders a missed deadline could be traced against. 1 7 14
The Data Protection Officer
A centralized searchable repository with role-based access controls, obligation and milestone tracking with automated alerts, automatic flagging of renewals and milestones, and dashboards on contract status, cycle times and risk exposure are documented, with obligations exposed in the API. I found no public information on notice periods and end dates modelled as fields, on escalation of reminders to named owners, on linked contract hierarchies, or on full-text search of scanned contracts — nothing states where or whether OCR runs at all. 1 7 14
The Skeptic
A searchable repository with role-based access, obligation and milestone tracking with automated alerts, automatic renewal flagging and reporting dashboards are evidenced. The only documented reminder schedule, though, nudges a signer about a pending signature rather than tracking contract deadlines, and we found no public information on notice periods as modelled fields, OCR of scanned contracts, escalation to named owners, linked amendments, or logged acknowledgements a missed deadline could be traced through. 1 7 9 10 14
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 AI addendum contractually commits that customer inputs and outputs are not used to train any model, including third-party foundational models, and offers configuration options to limit or disable AI functionality, backed by an ethical AI statement on explainability and human oversight. We found no public information naming the model provider or where AI processing runs, on extracted values shown with their source passage, or on an EU AI Act position, so I cannot verify what touches my contracts. 11 12
The Procurement Analyst
The published AI addendum states contractually that customer data trains no global, shared or third-party models (Azure OpenAI GPT named as the example), customers keep their inputs and outputs, and AI features can be limited or disabled where applicable. I found no public information on where AI processing runs, an EU AI Act position, or extracted values shown with their source passage for confirmation. 1 11 12
The Sales Ops Owner
The AI addendum is contractual language I can hold them to: no training of global or third-party foundational models on customer data, customer ownership of inputs and outputs, configuration options to limit or disable AI features, and a stated explainability commitment. But we found no public information naming the model provider or where processing runs, on extracted values shown with their source passage, per-field confidence, or an EU AI Act position. 1 11 12
The IT Integrator
The AI addendum states contractually that customer inputs and outputs are not used to train any model, including third-party foundational models with Azure OpenAI GPT named as the example, and customers retain ownership of their prompts and generated content. The stated controls to limit or disable AI features are hedged as applying "where applicable", and I found no public information on where AI processing runs, extracted values linked to their source passage, accuracy or confidence per field, or an EU AI Act position. 1 11 12
The Data Protection Officer
The AI addendum states contractually that neither Conga nor third-party foundational models are trained on customer data, that training is limited to models for the customer's own tenant, and that customers retain their AI inputs and outputs — the strongest part of the public record. However, no model provider is confirmed as the one actually receiving contract text (Azure OpenAI GPT appears only as an example), nothing states whether that provider retains the text or where processing runs, the ability to limit or disable AI features is hedged as options Conga may provide where applicable, and I found no public information on extracted values shown with their source passage, per-field confidence, or an EU AI Act position. 1 8 11 12
The Skeptic
The AI addendum commits contractually not to train on customer inputs, outputs, third-party foundational models or global models, and offers configuration options to limit or disable AI functionality where applicable — good paper. But the model actually used is not named (Azure OpenAI appears only as an example of what is not trained), extracted values are not shown with their source passage for confirmation, and we found no public information on per-field accuracy, EU processing location, or an EU AI Act position. 1 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
A documented public REST API covering contracts, clauses, obligations and templates, query-based export to Excel or CSV, named Salesforce, Dynamics, Office and Word integrations, and multiple signature providers including Conga Sign, Adobe Sign and OneSpan form real connective tissue. We found no public information on the eIDAS level of the signature, on SSO, webhooks or SCIM, or on an export carrying versions, approvals and audit trail. 1 9 13 14
The Procurement Analyst
A documented public REST API, Salesforce and Microsoft connections, e-signature through Conga Sign, AdobeSign or OneSpan, and an Excel/CSV export of query results are evidenced. The signature's eIDAS level is not stated, and I found no public information on SSO, webhooks, or an export carrying documents, versions and audit trail — what is documented exports object query results, not the file repository. 1 9 13 14
The Sales Ops Owner
A documented REST API across contracts, documents, clauses, obligations, reviews and templates, named Salesforce, Microsoft Office and Dynamics integrations, CPQ data flowing into contracts, and e-signature in the same flow with recipients needing no subscription cover the middle level. We found no public information on SSO, webhooks or SCIM, or on the e-signature level under eIDAS, and the export shown handles query results in Excel and CSV — we found no public information on an export of documents together with versions and audit trail. 1 13 14 14
The IT Integrator
There is a documented public REST API on versioned v1 paths covering contracts, clauses, obligations, reviews and templates, an API-first signature service, named Salesforce, Microsoft Word, Office and Dynamics integrations, and e-signature via Conga Sign, AdobeSign and OneSpan. I found no public information on SSO, SCIM, webhooks, SAP or DATEV connectors, an API deprecation policy, or the eIDAS level of the signature — qualified signature is exactly what I need to see stated. The documented export executes a per-object query to Excel or CSV; I found no public information on exporting documents together with their versions, approvals and audit trail, which is the part I will need on the way out. 1 7 9 13 14 14
The Data Protection Officer
An API-first platform with a documented REST API, integrations with Salesforce, Microsoft Word, Office 365 and Dynamics, and e-signature through Conga Sign, AdobeSign or OneSpan are evidenced, with recipients able to sign without a subscription. The eIDAS level of the signature is not stated, I found no public information on SSO, webhooks or SCIM, and the documented export covers query results to Excel or CSV rather than documents together with their metadata, versions and audit trail; I also found no public information on a migration path or confirmed deletion after contract end. 1 9 13 14 14
The Skeptic
A documented public REST API covering contracts, clauses, obligations, reviews and templates, a Salesforce connector, Office, Dynamics and Word connections, and e-signature through Conga Sign, Adobe Sign and OneSpan are evidenced. But the e-signature level is never stated against any standard, we found no public information on SSO, webhooks or SCIM, and the only export evidenced runs a query on a single object type to Excel or CSV — documents together with their versions, approvals and audit trail are not covered. 1 7 9 13 14
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 and operating entity is Conga Corporation of Broomfield, Colorado, with the privacy contact in the United States; we found no public information on where contracts and their extracted data are hosted, on a subprocessor list including the AI and OCR providers the text is passed to, or on any EU contracting or hosting option. For a repository holding my company's most confidential commitments and those of my counterparties, nothing here meets even the first rung. 3 12
The Procurement Analyst
Conga's privacy contact is a Broomfield, Colorado headquarters address, and the captured pages leave hosting location, contracting entity, ownership and every subprocessor unstated; the AI addendum's only model reference is Azure OpenAI GPT with no processing location. For a repository holding my suppliers' most confidential commitments, that is everything I cannot verify. 3 12
The Sales Ops Owner
The privacy contact and headquarters address sit in Broomfield, Colorado, and we found no public information on an EU contracting entity, hosting location, data residency or a subprocessor list including AI and OCR providers. GDPR-style data subject rights and a processor-role statement appear in the privacy policy, but no EU hosting or EU entity appears in the captured pages. 3
The IT Integrator
The vendor is Conga Corporation of Broomfield, Colorado with the privacy contact in the United States, and I found no public information on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, where contracts and extracted data are hosted, or a subprocessor list — including the AI and OCR providers the contract text would pass to. For a repository holding a company's most confidential commitments, the captured pages give me no EU hosting option or European entity to contract with. 3 12
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity and global headquarters are in Broomfield, Colorado, hosting location is unstated beyond congacloud.com endpoints, and I found no published subprocessor list naming the AI or OCR providers that receive contract text. The only glimpse of the AI chain is Azure OpenAI GPT cited as an example third-party model with no processing location given, no published DPA covering contract data as the customer's processing is captured, and no certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5 appear. 3 5 12
The Skeptic
This is a US vendor with its headquarters in Broomfield, Colorado, and we found no public information on where contract data or AI processing are hosted, on the contracting entity's jurisdiction, or on any subprocessor list including the AI and OCR providers the text is passed to. The AI addendum's no-training commitments are sound data hygiene but say nothing about location, and nothing in the captures evidences EU hosting or certifications. 1 3 12
Pricing transparency
not rated — the vendor publishes no price
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 public pricing page is a consent-gated form showing no tiers, no pricing basis and no add-on prices, and onboarding is described only as a dedicated team with no fee stated in anything we could see. A buyer cannot begin to compute the annual invoice from public pages. 2 7
The Procurement Analyst
The captured pricing page shows a lead-capture form and a consent-to-privacy checkbox and nothing else — no tiers, no pricing basis, no add-on, onboarding or support-plan prices. The real annual invoice is unknowable from public pages; onboarding is described as a dedicated team with no fee attached. 2 7
The Sales Ops Owner
The captured pricing page offers a form that requires consent to the privacy notice; we found no public information on tier prices, the pricing basis, which features sit in which tier, add-ons for AI or signature volume, onboarding fees or the minimum term. That leaves nothing to put in next year's budget short of a sales conversation. 2
The IT Integrator
The captured pricing page yields only a form whose submission requires consent to the privacy notice, and no tier, price, pricing basis, add-on, onboarding fee or minimum term is stated anywhere on the captured pages. I found no public information on prices, so the annual cost can only be established through a sales conversation. 2
The Data Protection Officer
The captured pricing page shows nothing but a form requiring consent to the privacy notice — I found no public price figures, no pricing basis, no tier contents, no add-on prices for AI or signatures, no onboarding or migration fees, and no minimum term anywhere in the captured pages. Multiple support plans and a dedicated onboarding team are marketed without any price attached, so the annual invoice is not computable from public information. 2 7
The Skeptic
The captured pricing page shows nothing but a form whose submission requires consent to the privacy notice — the pure sales-conversation pattern — and no price figure, tier, pricing basis, add-on, onboarding fee or minimum term appears anywhere. Support plans and a dedicated onboarding team are described, but every one of them is unpriced. 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 | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Conga CLM
Is Conga CLM European?
No. whats-best.ai classifies Conga CLM as Rest of world.
Where does Conga CLM store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
Does Conga CLM have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Conga CLM?
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: Conga CLM 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 — 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.
- 44 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
- 20 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
- 9 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
- 5 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
- 2 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
- 1 support 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 sovereignty dimension could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and is 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 conga.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page conga.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy conga.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service conga.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Drafting, templates & clause library — found from sitemap developer.conga.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Drafting, templates & clause library — found from sitemap developer.conga.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Negotiation, redlining & approval — found from sitemap conga.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Negotiation, redlining & approval — found from sitemap developer.conga.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Repository, deadlines & obligations — found from sitemap developer.conga.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Repository, deadlines & obligations — found from sitemap developer.conga.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 AI extraction & review transparency — found from sitemap conga.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 AI extraction & review transparency — found from sitemap conga.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Integrations, signature & exit — found from sitemap conga.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Integrations, signature & exit — found from sitemap developer.conga.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →