whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Contract Management (CLM)

DiliTrust Contracts

Provenance unknown Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 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

DiliTrust Contracts: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai DiliTrust Contracts: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

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

DiliTrust Contracts alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Has seen "AI that reads your contracts" miss a notice period buried in an amendment. Reads for an extraction accuracy nobody states, "Word integration" that loses tracked changes, "never miss a renewal" with reminders to one inbox, and an export that leaves the metadata behind.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Skeptic

Panel median The Skeptic This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Skeptic
Drafting, templates & clause library 3.5 of 5 3 of 5
Negotiation, redlining & approval 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Repository, deadlines & obligations 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
AI extraction & review transparency 3 of 5 3 of 5
Integrations, signature & exit 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
European sovereignty 2.5 of 5 2.5 of 5

Drafting, templates & clause library

How this is scored

Creating a contract without starting from an old one: templates with variables and conditional clauses, an approved clause library, self-service generation for business teams, and support for German-language and German-law templates.

0 — No drafting at all; the product only stores finished contracts.

3 — Contract templates with placeholders filled in to create a new draft.

5 — Templates with variables, a clause library of approved wording, and a form or questionnaire that lets business users generate standard contracts themselves.

8 — Conditional clauses and approved fallbacks, template and clause versioning with an owner per clause, German-language and multilingual templates from one source, generation from CRM or procurement records, playbook rules that flag deviations from approved wording, and template use reported.

10 — Drafting is governed end to end: every clause traceable to its approved version and owner, deviations from the playbook visible on every draft, bilingual German–English contracts generated side by side, and templates exportable in an open format.

Report an error

The Skeptic

Templates carry variables, fixed content and conditions, multiply per contract type, and a clause book pushes updates into every template that uses the clause; contracts can also be generated from Salesforce or HubSpot records. We found no public information on clause versioning with an owner per clause, approved fallbacks, playbook rules flagging deviations from approved wording, or German-language and multilingual template handling. 4 12 8

Report an error

Negotiation, redlining & approval

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Repository, deadlines & obligations

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

AI extraction & review transparency

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Integrations, signature & exit

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 6 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

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

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.

Do you know more about DiliTrust Contracts? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (12)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor page www.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Imprint — found from the homepage www.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Drafting, templates & clause library — found from sitemap support.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Drafting, templates & clause library — found from sitemap support.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Negotiation, redlining & approval — found from sitemap support.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Negotiation, redlining & approval — found from sitemap support.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Repository, deadlines & obligations — found from sitemap support.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Repository, deadlines & obligations — found from sitemap www.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  9. 9 AI extraction & review transparency — found from sitemap www.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  10. 10 AI extraction & review transparency — found from sitemap www.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Integrations, signature & exit — found from sitemap support.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Integrations, signature & exit — found from sitemap www.dilitrust.com Checked 3 Nov 2026 Details →