Contract Management (CLM)
DiliTrust Contracts
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by DiliTrust · www.dilitrust.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.
DiliTrust Contracts at a glance
- Vendor
- DiliTrust
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates DiliTrust Contracts 3.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. DiliTrust Contracts is the contract lifecycle management module of a five-module SaaS suite from DiliTrust, a French SAS registered at RCS Nanterre. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 3 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 4 Nov 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
DiliTrust Contracts is the contract lifecycle management module of a five-module SaaS suite from DiliTrust, a French SAS registered at RCS Nanterre. The strongest bands are repository and obligations and integration and exit, each ranging 7 to 7, resting on a searchable repository with OCR extraction and automated alerts for renewals, expirations and compliance deadlines, and on native Word, Outlook, Teams, Salesforce, HubSpot and Dynamics 365 connectors plus SCIM 2.0 and a CLM API in every CLM subscription. Negotiation and approval scores 7-8 for its documented internal-then-external review — the counterparty needs no account — and approval routing by contract amount. The weakest bands are AI extraction control at 6 and sovereignty at 5-6, where judges on both sides credit published certifications and in-house AI training and note the same gap: no data processing agreement or subprocessor list appears on the captured pages. Authoring and templates spans 6-7, with no public information on clause versioning or playbook rules. No prices appear on the pages read; pricing transparency scores 0 to 1 and is not counted in these verdicts.
Speaks for it
- Repository and obligations ranges 7 to 7, on one searchable contract repository with OCR extraction from scans and automated alerts for renewals, expirations and compliance deadlines
- Obligations are modelled as tasks linked to a contract and optionally a specific clause, each carrying a named responsible person, reminders and an export
- Integration and exit ranges 7 to 7, with the CLM API in every CLM subscription, SCIM 2.0 alongside SSO, and native connectors for Word, Google Docs, Outlook, Teams, Salesforce, HubSpot and Dynamics 365
- Negotiation and approval ranges 7 to 8: internal review then external review on a secure webpage where the counterparty needs no account, with approval workflows routing by document type, country or contract amount
- Qualified eIDAS-level signatures are named for Universign and SignaturIt, and signature events reach other systems through webhooks
Held against it
- Sovereignty scores 5 to 6: no data processing agreement or subprocessor list appears on the captured pages, and the stated presence spans France, the United States, Canada, Dubai, Spain, Italy, Germany, Mexico, Colombia and Peru
- AI extraction control scores 6 to 6: we found no public information on extracted values shown beside their source passage, per-field confidence, or a per-account switch to disable AI features
- Exit is the weak leg: the vendor's API FAQ states the Board Portal has no bulk document export and no endpoint for document versions, and we found no public information on a CLM export including metadata, versions and audit trail
- Authoring and templates scores 6 to 7: we found no public information on clause versioning with a named owner, approved fallbacks, or playbook rules flagging deviations from approved wording
- Tasks never switch to an overdue status on their own, a recurring task cannot be turned back into a one-off, and deleting the linked contract permanently orphans the obligation
Best for
- You need one searchable repository across the whole portfolio, with automated alerts for renewals, expirations and compliance deadlines — the criterion ranges 7 to 7
- Your sales team generates contracts from Salesforce opportunities or HubSpot deals, drafts in a native Word add-in, and needs approvals routed by contract amount band
- You negotiate with counterparties who should not need an account — external review runs on a secure webpage, every imported version is kept in history, and qualified eIDAS-level signatures are available via Universign and SignaturIt
- You track contractual obligations as owned tasks — each obligation is a task linked to a contract and optionally to a specific clause, with a named responsible person, statuses and reminders
Avoid if
- Your deadline discipline depends on the system itself flagging overdue items — tasks keep their current status when a due date passes, recurrence cannot be turned back into a one-off, and deleting a linked contract permanently orphans the obligation
- You need a documented way out with your data — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You must settle data protection terms before signing — ask the vendor: the public pages we read do not show it
- You need published extraction accuracy or per-field confidence before relying on automated fields — AI extraction control scores 6 to 6, and we found no public information on either
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Drafting, templates & clause library | 3.5 of 5 |
| Negotiation, redlining & approval | 3.5 of 5 |
| Repository, deadlines & obligations | 3.5 of 5 |
| AI extraction & review transparency | 3 of 5 |
| Integrations, signature & exit | 3.5 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 2.5 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 or approval; the product starts once a contract is signed.
3 — Comments and a version list on a contract, and an internal approval step.
5 — Editing with tracked changes or version comparison, counterparty collaboration in the browser, and configurable approval steps by contract type or value.
8 — A Word add-in or round-trip that keeps changes, counterparty access without a licence, 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
The documented flow is internal review then external review: the counterparty works a secure webpage without a licence account, accepts or declines with a comment, and can upload a new version that returns to DiliTrust, with every imported version kept in history; approval workflows route by amount band with anyone-or-everybody steps and private messages per reviewer kept from the counterparty. We found no public information on delegation of approvals or a concession-by-concession audit record, so I stop short of full marks. 5 6 8 12
The Procurement Analyst
The path is documented end to end: internal review with sequential reviewers and per-reviewer private messages, then an external review where the counterparty needs no licence, can comment and upload a new version that lands in the version history, edited in Word or Google Docs. Approval routing reacts to document type, country, amount band or department with parallel and sequential steps in unlimited number; delegation and a per-version record of who approved what are not shown. 5 6 8
The Sales Ops Owner
Workflows route by contract amount — one validator chain between one and two thousand euros, a longer one above — with conditions on document type, country, business unit or department, and anyone-or-everybody validation steps holding multiple people or teams. Counterparties review on a secure webpage without an account, upload new versions into a recorded version history, and the same negotiation ends in validation and signature with no licence needed to sign. We found no public information on approver delegation or a per-version approval record export. 5 6 12
The IT Integrator
External review sends the counterparty a link to a secure webpage where they view, download, comment, accept or decline, and can upload a new version that lands back in the system, with every negotiated version kept in history and editing in Word, Google Docs or the built-in editor. Approvals are configurable workflows with conditions on document type and contract amount, anyone-or-everybody steps, multiple validators per step, sequential reviewers and private messages visible only to the intended reviewer. We found no public information on delegation or an export of the negotiation history with the signed version. 5 6 8
The Data Protection Officer
Negotiation runs as an internal review followed by an external review in which the counterparty works from a secure webpage without an account, can decline with a comment and upload a revised version, and every imported version is kept in the version history; private messages per internal reviewer stay out of the counterparty's view. Standard workflows route validation conditionally on amount, country, business unit or department, with parallel (everybody) or sequential validators in multiple steps. We found no public information on delegation of approvals or an audit trail recording who approved which version. 5 6 12
The Skeptic
Internal review followed by an external review on a secure webpage is documented — the counterparty needs no account, can accept, decline, comment or upload a new version, and every imported version is kept in version history; approvals route by document type, country or contract amount with anyone-or-everybody steps, and per-reviewer private messages stay out of the counterparty's view. We found no public information on tracked-changes redlining in the browser or on a record of who approved which version, and an untraceable concession is exactly the risk in a negotiation record. 5 6 8
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 (Kündigungsfristen) and renewal dates captured and reminded, obligations tracked to an owner, access rights by department, and reporting on the portfolio.
0 — Not a contract repository; signed contracts are not kept in the product.
3 — A central contract store with metadata fields, search, and a reminder on the end date.
5 — Notice periods, renewal terms and end dates captured per contract with reminders to the responsible person, search across contracts and their metadata, and access rights per department, team or user.
8 — Reminders with escalation to named owners, full-text search including scanned contracts (OCR), 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
Every contract sits in one searchable repository with multi-criteria and in-document language search, OCR extraction from scans, automated alerts for renewals, expirations and compliance deadlines, role-based access and reporting; obligations are modelled as tasks linked to a contract and optionally to the exact clause, with a named Responsible, status and reminders. Notice periods as such, reminder escalation and logged acknowledgements are not documented on the captured pages — and a missed notice period is precisely the exposure I manage against. 8 10 7
The Procurement Analyst
The repository searches on contract type, parties, dates, values and language inside the agreements, OCR covers scans and images, and obligations are modelled as tasks linked to a contract and optionally a specific clause, with a named Responsible who alone can mark them done — exactly the modelling I want. Automated alerts cover renewals, expirations and compliance deadlines, but I found no public information on notice periods as a captured field, escalation when a reminder goes unheeded, logged acknowledgements, or a portfolio view of what can be cancelled this quarter. 7 8 10
The Sales Ops Owner
Contracts sit in one searchable repository with multi-criteria search, automated alerts for renewals, expirations and compliance deadlines, role-based access, and reporting on performance and compliance status. Obligations are modelled as tasks linked to a contract and optionally a specific clause, each with a responsible person, a status lifecycle, reminders and an export — the renewal discipline I need before auto-renewals bite. We found no public information on reminder escalation with acknowledgement logging, deadlines cited to their clause, or retention rules per contract type. 7 8 10
The IT Integrator
Contracts sit in one searchable repository with multi-criteria search including language within the agreements, automated alerts for renewals, expirations and compliance deadlines, and OCR extraction feeding dates, parties, clauses and obligations into a summary sheet. Obligations are modelled as recurring tasks with a named Responsible who alone can close them, optional clause linkage and reminders so a deadline is not missed. We found no public information on notice periods captured as their own field, reminder escalation or logged acknowledgements of reminders, which is what audit-grade deadline handling would need. 7 8 10
The Data Protection Officer
Every contract sits in one searchable repository with extracted parties, effective dates and values, OCR over scanned files and images, and automated alerts for renewals, expirations and compliance deadlines. Obligations are modelled as tasks linked to a contract and optionally to a specific clause, with a responsible owner, statuses, reminders and export, alongside reporting on contract performance and compliance status. We found no public information on escalation of missed reminders or a logged reminder history, and tasks do not switch to an overdue status automatically when a due date passes. 7 8 10
The Skeptic
Parties, effective dates and values are extracted by OCR from scans and feed automated alerts for renewals, expirations and compliance deadlines, while obligations are modelled as tasks carrying a responsible person, a status and reminders. But the task system never switches a task to overdue on its own, a recurring task cannot be turned back into a one-off, and deleting the linked contract permanently orphans the obligation — a missed deadline leaves no trace the system itself flags. 8 10 7
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 — The vendor states that customer contracts train its models with no opt-out, or that AI-extracted values are applied without any human check.
3 — AI extraction or review described with what it extracts (dates, parties, clauses), and a general statement on how contract data is handled.
5 — Extracted values presented for a human to review and confirm, a statement that customer contracts are not used for training, and either the model provider or the AI processing location named.
8 — Model provider named as a subprocessor, AI processing available within the EU, extracted values linked to their source passage, AI features that can be disabled per account, each feature documented with its purpose and inputs, accuracy or confidence shown per 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
Extraction of dates, parties, clauses and obligations from any format through OCR into a summary sheet is documented, and a published AI code of conduct states European AI Act alignment, human oversight of critical decisions, in-house models trained on synthetic and public datasets rather than client contracts, no third-party sharing, and ISO 27001, 27701 and SOC 2. We found no public information tying extracted values to their source passage, per-field confidence, or a per-account switch to disable AI features — the controls my team would need to defend the output. 10 9 1
The Procurement Analyst
The vendor states the engine is proprietary, designed and trained exclusively in-house on a synthetic legal dataset with no third-party sharing, that human oversight governs critical decisions, and publishes a code-of-conduct position aligned with the European AI Act; extraction of dates, parties, clauses and obligations lands in a structured summary that tasks can be created from. Processing location for the AI, per-field confidence, a link from each extracted value to its source passage, and a switch to disable AI features per account are not shown. 9 10 7
The Sales Ops Owner
The vendor names its own in-house engine, Lini, says models are trained exclusively by its teams on synthetic and publicly available datasets with no third-party sharing, commits to human oversight on critical decisions, and publishes an AI code of conduct plus alignment with the European AI Act. Extraction covers dates, parties, clauses and obligations, with OCR on scanned formats, landing in a structured summary a person reviews. We found no public information on linking extracted values to their source passage, per-field confidence, or switching AI features off per account. 9 10 1
The IT Integrator
The published AI code of conduct commits to proprietary in-house models trained on a synthetic legal dataset, human oversight for critical decisions, no third-party sharing and alignment with the European AI Act. Extracted dates, parties, clauses and obligations are presented in a summary sheet for review. We found no public information on extracted values linked to their source passage, AI features that can be disabled per account, or a named AI processing location — the operational controls I would want before trusting automated extraction. 1 9 10
The Data Protection Officer
The extraction engine is the vendor's own — Lini — with models designed and trained exclusively by DiliTrust's teams on a synthetic legal dataset, so no external model provider is named as receiving contract text; an AI code of conduct states alignment with the European AI Act, human oversight of critical decisions, and encryption before data leaves the device. Extraction of dates, parties, clauses and obligations from any format via OCR is documented per contract type. We found no public information on extracted values being shown with their source passage, per-field accuracy or confidence, or the ability to switch AI features off per account. 1 9 10
The Skeptic
A published AI code of conduct states alignment with the EU AI Act, that models are designed and trained exclusively in-house on synthetic and public datasets with human oversight for critical decisions, and that clients can connect their own sovereign models via API; the engine is named as the proprietary Lini. We found no public information on extraction accuracy or per-field confidence, on each extracted value shown beside its source passage, or on switching AI features off per account — and an accuracy nobody states is what a notice period buried in an amendment rides on. 9 10 1
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: simple, advanced or qualified), SSO, an API, and a documented export of documents together with their metadata, versions and audit trail.
0 — A closed tool with no integrations, no API and no export.
3 — A few named integrations (storage, CRM or e-signature) and a download of contract files.
5 — Integrations with named CRM, storage or office tools, e-signature integrated with the provider or eIDAS level named, and a documented API or an export of contracts with their metadata.
8 — Maintained integrations with systems common in DACH (SAP, Microsoft 365, Salesforce, DATEV-connected or procurement tools), qualified electronic signature available, SSO and SCIM, webhooks, 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
Public REST/JSON APIs for the CLM and other modules come with the subscription and respect user permissions, SCIM 2.0 runs alongside SSO, and signatures flow through the built-in service or DiliSign to DocuSign, Adobe Sign and Universign with qualified, eIDAS-compliant levels, webhooks on completion, plus native Microsoft 365, Salesforce, Dynamics and HubSpot connectors. On exit the documentation states there is no bulk export for Board Portal documents and no endpoint for document versions, and we found no public information on an export of contracts with their versions, approvals and audit trail. 11 12
The Procurement Analyst
Signature and identity are strong: qualified and advanced eIDAS levels through Universign, SignaturIt, Connective and others behind one API, SCIM 2.0 alongside SSO, signature webhooks, and native connectors for Salesforce, HubSpot, Dynamics 365 and the Microsoft 365 world, with the CLM REST API included in every CLM subscription. Exit is where it thins: I found no documented export of documents together with metadata, versions and audit trail, and the captured answers state the Board Portal has no bulk document export and no endpoint for document versions or history. 11 12
The Sales Ops Owner
Every CLM subscription includes a REST JSON API, SCIM 2.0 provisioning works alongside SSO with Microsoft Entra ID documented, and webhooks fire on signature events. Signature stays in the flow — a built-in service returning signed documents with an audit trail certificate, up to two providers active at once from DocuSign, Adobe Sign, Universign, Signaturit and others, with qualified eIDAS-level signatures named for Universign and Signaturit — and native Salesforce, HubSpot and Dynamics 365 connections cover my CRM-to-contract path. We found no public information on a documented export including versions, approvals and audit trail in an open format; the captured documentation states the Board Portal has no bulk export for documents. 11 12
The IT Integrator
Strong connectivity: a versioned REST API for the CLM with refresh tokens, SCIM 2.0 documented against Microsoft Entra ID and working alongside SSO, API access included in every CLM subscription, and qualified electronic signatures via Signaturit and Universign, with webhooks on signature events and an audit-trail certificate from the built-in signature service. Native Microsoft 365 (Word, Outlook, Teams) and CRM connectors (Salesforce, HubSpot, Dynamics) are listed. Exit is the weak leg: the vendor's own API FAQ states there is no bulk document export for the Board Portal, and we found no public information on a CLM export including metadata, versions and audit trail, an API deprecation policy, or SAP and DATEV connectors — exactly what I will need on migration day. 11 12
The Data Protection Officer
Public REST APIs exist for five modules with the CLM API included in every subscription, SCIM 2.0 working alongside SSO, webhooks on signature events, and a broad native surface including Word, Google Docs, Dynamics 365, Teams, Outlook, HubSpot and Salesforce. Qualified electronic signatures are available through Universign and Signaturit with advanced levels from several other providers, and the built-in signature service returns an audit trail certificate. On exit the picture is thinner: the Board Portal API has no bulk document export, no document-version endpoint and no delta sync, and we found no public information on a documented full-repository export in an open format. 7 11 12
The Skeptic
Word, Teams, Outlook, Gmail, Salesforce, Dynamics 365 and HubSpot integrations are listed, SCIM 2.0 with SSO is documented, qualified signatures come via Universign and SignaturIt, and signature events use webhooks. The exit side is the weak leg: the vendor's own API FAQ states the Board Portal has no bulk document export, no document-versions endpoint, no delta feed and no pagination, and we found no public information on exporting the contract repository together with its metadata, versions and audit trail. 11 12 7
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. Dimensions the evidence does not establish are unknown, not non-European.
0 — Vendor, contracting entity and hosting all shown to be outside the EU, with no data processing agreement offered.
3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement offered, with hosting or the contracting entity outside the EU or not established.
5 — EU hosting stated and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, with a data processing agreement offered.
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: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor, AI processing within the EU on providers the customer can see, certifications (ISO 27001, BSI C5 or equivalent) published.
The General Counsel
The contracting entity is DiliTrust SAS, registered at RCS Nanterre, under French law and the exclusive jurisdiction of French courts; the hosting company is named as OVH in Roubaix, France, and the code of conduct claims data centres local to each client region, no third-party sharing, no exposure to the US CLOUD Act except for US clients, and ISO 27001, 27701 and SOC 2 certifications. We found no public information on a data processing agreement, a published subprocessor list, or the ownership behind the entity — the first two documents my team asks any repository vendor for. 2 9 1
The Procurement Analyst
The contracting entity is a French SAS under French law with exclusive French jurisdiction, the imprint names OVH in Roubaix as the hosting company, the vendor describes local data centers in the regions clients operate in including France, Germany, Spain and Italy, and ISO 27001, 27701 and SOC 2 Type II are published. I found no public information on a data processing agreement or a subprocessor list showing where the AI and OCR processing runs, so the deeper dimensions remain unknown to me. 2 9 1
The Sales Ops Owner
The contracting entity is a French SAS registered at RCS Nanterre under French governing law, the named hosting company is OVH in Roubaix, France, and the vendor states data centres sit locally in the regions clients operate in, with ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27701 published. The AI is described as in-house and sovereign. We found no public information on a data processing agreement or a published subprocessor list, which holds this at the middle of the scale. 2 9 1
The IT Integrator
The legal notice shows a French contracting entity (DiliTrust SAS, RCS Nanterre, French governing law) and names OVH in Roubaix, France as the hosting company, with ISO 27001, ISO 27701 and SOC 2 Type II certifications published and data centers stated to sit locally in each client's region. We found no public information on a data processing agreement or a published subprocessor list covering the AI and OCR providers the contract text reaches, so the evidence stops at the middle band. 2 9
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is a French company — RCS Nanterre, SIRET and French VAT numbers published under French governing law — and hosting is with OVH at a named address in Roubaix, with data centres stated to sit locally in each client's region and the AI built in-house; ISO 27001, ISO 27701 and SOC 2 Type II are published. What I read first, I could not find: no published subprocessor list and no data processing agreement appear on the captured pages, so I cannot confirm from public material that the counterparties' personal data in every contract is covered by a DPA. 1 2 9
The Skeptic
The contracting entity is a French SAS registered at RCS Nanterre under exclusive French jurisdiction, the legal notice names OVH in Roubaix as hosting company, and ISO 27001, ISO 27701 and SOC 2 Type II are published with AI trained in-house. We found no public information on a data processing agreement, a published subprocessor list with locations, or which region a given contract tenant lands in — the stated presence spans France, Germany and Spain alongside the United States, Dubai and Peru. 2 9 1
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 public "from" price, a free tier, or one priced tier, with the rest on request.
5 — Prices for each tier public with the billing period (per month or per year) and the pricing basis (users, contracts or modules).
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 not rated — no public information
We found no public information on pricing: no price, billing basis, tier breakdown, add-on charge or minimum term appears on any page we captured. The only adjacent statements are that support, training and the CLM API are included in every subscription, which does not let a buyer compute an annual cost. 1 11
The Procurement Analyst not rated — no public information
I found no public information on pricing: no tier prices, no billing basis per user or contract, no add-on costs for signature volume, integrations or onboarding, and no minimum term appear on the vendor homepage or integrations pages I read, so an annual cost cannot be computed from what is published. 1 12
The Sales Ops Owner not rated — no public information
We found no public information on pricing: no tier prices, pricing basis, minimum term, or onboarding and migration fees appear on any page we read, including the homepage and the integrations pages. For a buyer who needs a number for next year's budget, this means a sales conversation before a budget line can exist. 1 12
The IT Integrator
Across every captured page we found no price figures, tier structure, billing basis or minimum term, so an annual cost is not derivable from public pages alone. The only pricing-relevant statements are that unlimited user training is included in every subscription, that CLM API access is included in every CLM subscription, and that one feature is restricted to certain clients under a specific contractual agreement. 1 7 11
The Data Protection Officer not rated — no public information
We found no public information on prices, tiers, billing basis, add-ons or minimum terms on the homepage and product pages we read; the only pricing-related statement is that unlimited user training and a dedicated account manager are included in every subscription. 1
The Skeptic
We found no public information on prices, tiers, billing period or pricing basis in the captured pages — the homepage, integrations page and support articles describe inclusions such as unlimited training in every subscription and the CLM API in every CLM subscription, but no figure a buyer could compute a year's cost from. 1 11
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 6 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 ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hosting location | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Hosting options | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Open source | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data processing agreement | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Transfer impact assessment | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about DiliTrust Contracts
Is DiliTrust Contracts European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where DiliTrust Contracts is based.
Where does DiliTrust Contracts store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
Does DiliTrust Contracts have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 3 Nov 2026.
What are the best alternatives to DiliTrust Contracts?
As of 4 Nov 2026, the panel rates fynk (3.5/5), Gatekeeper (3/5) and Precisely (3/5) highest among the other 27 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 fynk (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: DiliTrust Contracts alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 3 Nov 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Open source, Hosting options, Legal entity. 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.
- We found no public information on pricing on the pages we read (dilitrust.com, dilitrust.com/de/legal-notice-2, support.dilitrust.com/en/support/solutions/articles/7000081061-how-to-add-a-clause-template-from-my-clause-library-in-a-contract-model-, support.dilitrust.com/en/support/solutions/articles/7000081054-how-to-create-contract-templates-, support.dilitrust.com/en/support/solutions/articles/7000081052-how-do-i-negotiate-my-contract-, support.dilitrust.com/en/support/solutions/articles/7000081069-how-to-set-up-a-standard-workflow- and 6 more). If the vendor publishes it somewhere else, send us the page. Know more? Tell us
- 1 integrations 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 product 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 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
- 3 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
Sources (12)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page www.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 2 Imprint — found from the homepage www.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 3 Drafting, templates & clause library — found from sitemap support.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 4 Drafting, templates & clause library — found from sitemap support.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 5 Negotiation, redlining & approval — found from sitemap support.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 6 Negotiation, redlining & approval — found from sitemap support.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 7 Repository, deadlines & obligations — found from sitemap support.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 8 Repository, deadlines & obligations — found from sitemap www.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 9 AI extraction & review transparency — found from sitemap www.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 10 AI extraction & review transparency — found from sitemap www.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations, signature & exit — found from sitemap support.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
- 12 Integrations, signature & exit — found from sitemap www.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →