Contract Management (CLM)
Gatekeeper
Provenance unknown Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Gatekeeper Hub Ltd · gatekeeperhq.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.
Gatekeeper at a glance
- Vendor
- Gatekeeper Hub Ltd
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Gatekeeper 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Gatekeeper is a contract management platform whose scores peak at 6-7 on repository and obligations: judges credited extraction of the initial term, the auto-renewal trigger and the notice period, with renewal dates owned, automatic reminders and OCR full-text search. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 20 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 21 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Gatekeeper is a contract management platform whose scores peak at 6-7 on repository and obligations: judges credited extraction of the initial term, the auto-renewal trigger and the notice period, with renewal dates owned, automatic reminders and OCR full-text search. Negotiation and approval, and integration and exit, follow at 5-6, resting on approval routing driven by the delegated authority matrix, a documented RESTful API with webhooks and NetSuite, and an exit export of CSV data with native-format attachments within 30 days. Authoring and templates and AI extraction control sit at 4-5; the AI terms bar training and fine-tuning and require human review, but no AI provider is named, and the captured pages give different statements on data used to improve AI features. Sovereignty is the floor at 1-2: entities sit in Jersey, London, Delaware and Toronto, the DPA is governed by the law of England and Wales, the subprocessor list is on request only, and we found no public information on hosting location, though ISO 27001 and Irish-law SCCs are published. Pricing transparency sits at 1.
Speaks for it
- Repository and obligations scored 6-7, the highest criterion, extracting the initial term, the auto-renewal trigger and the notice period, with renewal dates given owners and automatic reminders
- Approval routing follows the customer's delegated authority matrix, with single and parallel approvers, delegation, and every decision recorded in the card's history with its comments
- The documented RESTful API provides a per-tenant OpenAPI 3.0 specification, per-key read and write permissions, call logs, webhooks and a NetSuite connection
- The AI terms commit that input and output are never used to train or fine-tune models, that processing is transient, and that human review is required before relying on output
- Termination brings an export of CSV data with attachments in native format within 30 days of request, followed by deletion within 60 days
Held against it
- Sovereignty scored 1-2, with contracting entities in Jersey, London, Delaware and Toronto, a DPA governed by the law of England and Wales, and no public information on hosting location
- No AI provider is named, the subprocessor list is available only on request, and the AI terms permit transferring input to countries where those providers operate
- The captured pages give different statements on data used to improve AI features — the AI terms bar use of content for training while the privacy policy says metadata, interaction logs and structured inputs may be used where permitted by law
- We found no public information on tracked-changes redlining, version comparison, a Word round-trip that keeps changes, or German-language and German-law templates; the only documented drafting action converts Word to PDF
- The documented exit export is CSV data with native-format attachments, and we found no public information on versions, approvals or audit trail being included
Best for
- You need to police auto-renewals and notice periods across a large portfolio — obligation extraction with owners and reminders is the highest-scoring criterion at 6-7
- Your approvals must mirror a delegated authority matrix, with single, parallel and conditional approvals and every decision recorded in the card's history
- You want to build your own integrations — the RESTful API with a per-tenant OpenAPI 3.0 specification, scoped keys, call logs and webhooks is documented, with NetSuite named
- You want a touchless NDA workflow from request to signature
Avoid if
- Your policy requires an EU contracting entity or a stated hosting location — the entities sit in Jersey, London, Delaware and Toronto, and we found no public information on hosting location
- You must know where contract text is processed before signing — the subprocessor list is available only on request, no AI provider is named, and the AI terms permit transferring input to countries where those providers operate
- Your negotiation cycle depends on tracked-changes redlining or version comparison — the only documented drafting action converts Word to PDF
- You need the exit export to carry document versions, approvals and the audit trail — the documented export is CSV data with native-format attachments
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Drafting, templates & clause library | 2 of 5 |
| Negotiation, redlining & approval | 3 of 5 |
| Repository, deadlines & obligations | 3.5 of 5 |
| AI extraction & review transparency | 2 of 5 |
| Integrations, signature & exit | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1 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
The approval machinery is strong: routing configured to thresholds and the customer's delegated authority matrix, parallel and sequential approvers, delegation, and every decision recorded in the card's history with its comments. We found no public information on tracked-changes redlining, a Word round-trip that keeps changes, version comparison, or counterparty access without a licence — the only negotiation artefacts shown are a Word-to-PDF publish action and "faster redlines" as a legal-team capability with no mechanics behind it. 5 7 8
The Procurement Analyst
The approval machinery is real: conditional routing driven by a delegated authority matrix, parallel and sequential approvers with delegation, and every Approve or Reject recorded in the card history with the comments given at the time. The negotiation half is thinner — "faster redlines" is a marketing line, the documented drafting action converts Word to PDF rather than keeping tracked changes, and I found no public information on browser redlining, version comparison, or counterparty access without a licence. 5 7 8
The Sales Ops Owner
The approval engine is exactly what I run: single and parallel approvals, conditional routing driven by the customer's delegated authority matrix so value picks the approver, delegation when someone is out, and every decision recorded in the card's history. The counterparty side is thin — a marketing line about faster redlines and a Word-to-PDF publish action — and I found no public information on redline comparison, Word round-trip preservation, or a per-version record of who approved which text. 5 7 8
The IT Integrator
The approval machinery is genuinely strong: conditional routing driven by the delegated authority matrix, parallel and sequential approvers, delegation, and every decision recorded in the card's history with comments. The negotiation side is thinner — marketing language on faster redlines and an eNegotiate action that converts Word to PDF, but I found no public information on tracked-changes redlining, version comparison, Word round-trip, or counterparty access without a licence. 7 8 5 6
The Data Protection Officer
Internal approval is strong: single and parallel approvers, conditional routing driven by the customer's delegated authority matrix and thresholds, delegation, email approvals, and every decision with its comments recorded in the card history. Beyond a legal-team mention of faster redlines and an eNegotiate action that publishes a draft and converts Word to PDF, we found no public information on tracked-change redlining, a Word round-trip that keeps changes, counterparty access without a licence, or version comparison. 7 8 5
The Skeptic
Approval routing is genuinely configurable — single or parallel approvers, conditional rules driven by a delegated authority matrix, delegation, and every decision recorded in the card's history with comments. But the only drafting-workflow mechanism shown converts a Word draft to PDF for publishing, and we found no public information on redlining with tracked changes, a Word round-trip that keeps changes, version comparison, or counterparty access without a licence — "faster redlines" appears as a marketing phrase with no mechanism behind it. 5 7 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 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
Notice periods, auto-renewal triggers and renewal dates are extracted with owners and alerts before deadlines, obligations land on the contract record for tracking, and OCR-backed search covers document text as well as metadata. We found no public information on access rights by department, linked contract hierarchies for frameworks and amendments, or logged reminder acknowledgements a missed deadline could be traced to. 8 9 10
The Procurement Analyst
This is the criterion I care about, and the core is there: the agent captures the initial term, whether auto-renewal is triggered and the notice period required to stop it, renewal dates come with owners and reminders set automatically, obligations across six categories trigger alerts before deadlines, and OCR full-text search runs across metadata and document text. I found no public information on contract hierarchies linking framework agreements, amendments and orders, on logging reminder acknowledgements so a missed deadline can be traced, on access rights per department, and on portfolio reports over counterparties and cancellable commitments. 8 9 10
The Sales Ops Owner
Obligation extraction covering typed commitments, the auto-renewal trigger and notice period, renewal dates with owners and automatic reminders, and OCR full-text search over scanned documents cover most of what my team needs to police deadlines, with spend and renewal oversight for finance on top. I found no public information on linking frameworks with amendments and orders, or on logged acknowledgement of reminders, so a missed-deadline post-mortem may be thinner than the audit-trail language suggests. 8 9 10
The IT Integrator
The obligation agent captures initial terms, auto-renewal triggers and notice periods, tracks every renewal date with owners and automatic reminders, and global search reaches document text through OCR with confidence ratings. What I did not find: contract hierarchies linked, department-level access rights, escalation of reminders, logged acknowledgements of a missed deadline, or deadline values cited to their source clause. 10 9 8
The Data Protection Officer
Obligations and critical dates — payments, performance deadlines, initial term, auto-renewal trigger and notice period — are extracted into the contract record with automatic owners, reminders and alerts before deadlines, over a repository whose full-text search covers scanned documents via OCR. We found no public information on contract hierarchies such as frameworks and amendments, on reminders logged with acknowledgements so a missed deadline can be traced, or on deadlines derived from a cited clause. 10 9 8 1
The Skeptic
The obligation agent captures the initial term, whether auto-renewal is triggered and the notice period needed to prevent it, renewal dates get owners and automatic reminders, and global search covers metadata and OCR-scanned document text — the notice-period trap is at least modelled. But we found no public information on obligation status tracking, contract hierarchies linking framework agreements to amendments, reminders logged with acknowledgements, or access rights per department, and obligations are not shown tied to the clause they came from. 9 10 8 1
AI extraction & review transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the AI that extracts dates and clauses or reviews a draft is disclosed, verifiable and controllable: named model provider and processing location, no training on customer contracts, extracted values shown with their source passage, and features the customer can switch off. A product without AI features is judged on stating so.
0 — AI extraction or review is marketed with no statement of the model, where it runs, or what happens to the contract text.
3 — AI features described as a benefit with a general privacy assurance, but no model provider named, no statement on training, and extracted values shown without their source.
5 — The model provider or subprocessor named, a stated commitment not to train on customer contracts, extracted values linked to the source passage for confirmation, and AI features that can be disabled per account.
8 — AI processing available within the EU, each AI feature documented with its purpose and inputs, accuracy or confidence shown per extracted field, review results traceable to the playbook rule that triggered them, and an EU AI Act position published.
10 — AI is an accountable assistant: customer choice of model or EU-only processing, no retention of contract text by the model provider stated contractually, every AI-suggested value logged with who confirmed or corrected it, and AI off by default until the customer enables it.
The General Counsel
The AI terms commit in writing that contract content is never used to train or fine-tune models and that every agent action is logged with its evidence and reasoning. But no AI provider is named, processing location is unstated with input transferred to wherever the providers operate, the privacy policy separately notes that metadata and interaction logs may be used to improve AI-powered features, and we found no public information on a per-account off switch or a published EU AI Act position. 3 6 12
The Procurement Analyst
The AI Terms are firm where it counts: input and output are never used to train or fine-tune models, processing is transient, AI providers may not retain content beyond the session, human review is required before relying on output, and every agent action is logged with its criteria, decision and reasoning. But the AI providers are never named, input may be transferred to the countries where they operate, and I found no public information on extracted values shown with their source passage, on switching AI features off per account, or on an EU AI Act position. 6 10 12
The Sales Ops Owner
The AI terms commit contractually to what I care about: no training or fine-tuning on contract content, transient processing, human review required, and agent actions logged with their evidence and reasoning. But the AI providers are unnamed, input may be transferred to wherever those providers operate, and I found no public information on extracted values shown with their source passage, switching AI features off per account, or an EU AI Act position; the privacy policy separately describes using metadata and interaction logs to improve AI features, a different data class from contract text. 3 6 12
The IT Integrator
The AI terms commit that input is not used to train or fine-tune any model, is processed transiently, requires human review, and every agent action is logged with criteria, evidence and reasoning. No model provider is named, the terms permit transferring input to countries where the AI providers operate, and I found no public information on per-account switch-off of AI features or an EU AI Act position; the privacy policy also states metadata and interaction logs may be used to improve AI features where permitted by law, so the captured pages give different statements on AI improvement use. 12 6 3
The Data Protection Officer
The AI terms state contractually that neither Gatekeeper nor its AI providers use customer content to train or fine-tune models, that processing is transient with no retention beyond the session, and every agent action is logged with criteria, evidence and reasoning — but no model provider is named, no subprocessor list is published, and transfers of input to wherever the AI providers operate are permitted without a stated processing location. We found no public information on an account-level switch to disable AI features or an EU AI Act position, and the captured pages give different positions on data used for AI improvement: the AI terms prohibit any use of content for training while the privacy policy says metadata, interaction logs and structured inputs may be used to improve AI features where permitted by law. 12 10 3 9
The Skeptic
The AI terms state contractually that Input is not used to train or fine-tune models, providers may not retain it beyond the session, and human review of Output is required — stronger than a marketing privacy nod. But no model provider is named beyond a generic "AI Providers", input may be transferred to "countries where the AI Providers operate", and we found no public information on extracted values linked to their source passage, a per-account switch to disable AI features, or an EU AI Act position; the privacy policy also gives a different position on data used to improve AI features, saying metadata, interaction logs and structured inputs may be used where permitted by law. 12 3 6 10
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 REST API with an OpenAPI specification per tenant, webhooks, granular per-key permissions and a NetSuite connection are real, as is a contractually committed exit export of CSV data with attachments in native format within 30 days of request. We found no public information on the e-signature level (simple, advanced or qualified), SCIM provisioning, or an export that includes document versions and the audit trail, so exit returns the record but not, on the evidence, the history. 2 8 13 14
The Procurement Analyst
The API story is proper — RESTful with JSON:API, a per-tenant OpenAPI 3.0 specification, webhooks, per-key permissions with logs — alongside NetSuite, connections to finance and resource planning systems, e-signature inside the workflow, and on termination a CSV of customer data with attachments in native format followed by deletion. I found no public information on the legal level of the e-signature, on SCIM, or on an export that includes versions, approvals and the audit trail. 2 3 8 13 14
The Sales Ops Owner
The API is real and well governed — REST with an OpenAPI specification per tenant, scoped keys with revoke and disable, call logs and webhooks — and e-signature sits inside the workflow with the signed file returning to the record, plus a NetSuite connection and finance/ERP updates. I found no public information on the signature's eIDAS level, no CRM is named among the captured integrations, and exit is a CSV of data with native-format attachments rather than versions, approvals and audit trail. 2 8 13
The IT Integrator
The API is the best-evidenced part: RESTful with JSON:API, an OpenAPI 3.0 specification per tenant, per-key permissions with revocation, and webhooks; NetSuite is named and eSignature is built into the workflow with the signed agreement returning to the record, though the eIDAS level is not stated on the captured pages. Single sign-on shows only Google sign-in, and I found no public information on SCIM, API versioning with a deprecation policy, or SAP, Microsoft 365 or Salesforce connectors. On exit I get a CSV of data with attachments in native format within 30 days and deletion inside 60 days — versions, approvals and audit trail are not part of the documented export, which is exactly what I would need for a migration. 13 8 3 4 14 2
The Data Protection Officer
There is a documented RESTful API with an OpenAPI 3.0 specification per tenant, per-key read and write permissions, webhooks and a NetSuite and finance-system connection, e-signature built into the workflow with the signed agreement returning to the contract record, Google sign-in, and on termination a CSV export of data with attachments in native format followed by deletion within 60 days. The eIDAS level of the electronic signature is not stated, and we found no public information on an export that includes versions, approvals and audit trail, on SCIM, or on SAML-based single sign-on. 13 8 2 4 3
The Skeptic
There is a documented RESTful API with a per-tenant OpenAPI specification, per-key read/write permissions and call logs, webhooks, a named NetSuite integration, e-signature inside the workflow with the signed file returning to the record, and a termination export of CSV data with attachments in native format. But the e-signature's eIDAS level is never stated, no CRM or DACH-common system beyond NetSuite is named, sign-in is evidenced only via Google, and we found no public information on an export that carries versions, approvals and the audit trail with it — the CSV and the files may leave, the history may not. 13 8 2 14 3
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 entities sit in Jersey, London, Delaware and Toronto — none in the EU — hosting location is unstated, the subprocessor list is available only on request, and AI input may be transferred to countries where AI providers the captured pages do not name operate. A published DPA with Irish-law SCCs, a 30-day subprocessor-change notice and ISO 27001 certification are real mitigations, but for a repository holding a company's most confidential commitments the chain is non-EU and unexplained end to end. 3 4 12
The Procurement Analyst
The entities are Jersey, London, Delaware and Toronto, the privacy policy speaks of transferring personal data to Jersey, the UK, Canada and North America, and I found no public information on EU hosting or an EU contracting entity. The subprocessor list is available only on request and AI input may be transferred to the countries where unnamed providers operate. The saving graces are a published DPA with SCCs under Irish law, ISO 27001 for vendor and data centres, and named supervisory authorities. 3 4 12
The Sales Ops Owner
The contracting entities sit in Jersey, London, Delaware and Toronto, personal data transfers to Jersey, the UK, Canada and North America are described, and the subprocessor list including AI providers is available only on request; I found no public information on EU hosting. Published ISO 27001 certification, SOC 2 and a proper DPA with SCCs soften nothing here — for a repository holding our most confidential commitments this sits at the bottom of the scale. 3 4 12
The IT Integrator
The contracting and controller entities are Gatekeeper Ltd in Jersey and Gatekeeper UK Group Ltd in London, the privacy policy names transfers to Jersey, the UK, Canada and North America, the subprocessor list is available only on request, and hosting location is not stated — the AI providers' processing countries are likewise left open in the AI terms. ISO 27001 certification, a DPA on Irish-law SCCs and recognition of the Irish DPC as supervisory authority are real, which lifts this slightly off the floor for a European buyer. 4 3 12
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entities sit in Jersey, the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada, the DPA is governed by the law of England and Wales, personal data transfers to Jersey, the UK, Canada and North America are disclosed, and we found no public statement of hosting location. The subprocessor list — including the AI and OCR providers that contract text is passed to — is only available on request rather than published, so I cannot verify where AI processing runs; standard contractual clauses governed by Irish law, a published ISO 27001 certification and a 30-day subprocessor change notice exist, but no EU contracting entity or EU hosting commitment is evidenced. 4 3 12
The Skeptic
The contracting entities are in Jersey, London, Delaware and Toronto, the DPA is governed by the law of England and Wales, personal data may be transferred to offices in Jersey, the UK, Canada and North America, and the subprocessor list plus the unnamed AI providers exist only on request; we found no public information on where contracts are actually hosted. ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II are real and the SCC modules are published, but certifications say nothing about which jurisdiction a company's most confidential commitments sit in. 4 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
No public prices appear in the captured pages; everything runs through a demo request. The terms do publish pricing mechanics in outline — active user records as the user basis, VAT excluded, implementation and customisation charged separately, one-year auto-renewal at list price with 60 days' notice — but without a single figure the annual invoice is unknowable before the sales conversation. 2 11
The Procurement Analyst
There is no public price of any kind; the site routes buyers to a demo request. The terms do disclose mechanics a buyer needs — fees fixed for the term, VAT excluded, one-year auto-renewal at list price with 60 days' non-renewal notice, implementation and customisation not included in the subscription — but nothing from which an invoice could be computed. 2 11
The Sales Ops Owner
I found no public prices at all; every tier is a demo request, so I cannot put a number in next year's budget from public pages alone. The terms at least flag the traps before signature: fees exclude VAT, subscriptions auto-renew yearly at then-current list price unless I give 60 days' notice, implementation and customisation are billed separately from configuration, and users are counted as active records. 2
The IT Integrator
No public prices exist on any captured page — every tier sits behind a demo request, so the invoice is not computable. The terms tell me only that fees are fixed for the subscription term, exclude VAT, auto-renew for a year at list price with 60 days' notice, and that implementation and customisation are charged separately from configuration. 2 11
The Data Protection Officer
No prices are published anywhere in the captured pages; buyers are routed to a demo request, and the terms of service give only mechanics — fees fixed for the subscription term, VAT excluded, configuration included while implementation and customisation are separately charged and unpriced, and one-year automatic renewal at list price with 60 days' notice. A buyer cannot begin to compute an annual cost from public pages. 2 11
The Skeptic
No public price figure appears anywhere in the captured pages — the call to action is a demo request — so the invoice is unknowable before a sales conversation. The only cost facts are contractual: fees fixed per Order Form, automatic one-year renewal at list price unless 60 days' notice is given, VAT excluded, and implementation and customisation billed separately from the included configuration; the pricing basis itself — users, contracts or modules — is never published. 2 11
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 | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Gatekeeper
Is Gatekeeper European?
Not determined: the vendor’s pages as captured do not say where Gatekeeper is based.
Where does Gatekeeper store data?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
Does Gatekeeper have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 20 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Gatekeeper?
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: Gatekeeper alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 20 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- 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.
- 30 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 8 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
- 4 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 3 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
- 3 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
- 2 pricing facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 hosting fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
Sources (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor page gatekeeperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Terms of service — found from the homepage www.gatekeeperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy — found from the homepage www.gatekeeperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Data processing agreement (dpa) — found from the homepage www.gatekeeperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Drafting, templates & clause library — found from sitemap knowledge.gatekeeperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Drafting, templates & clause library — found from sitemap www.gatekeeperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Negotiation, redlining & approval — found from sitemap knowledge.gatekeeperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Negotiation, redlining & approval — found from sitemap www.gatekeeperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Repository, deadlines & obligations — found from sitemap knowledge.gatekeeperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Repository, deadlines & obligations — found from sitemap www.gatekeeperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 AI extraction & review transparency — found from sitemap www.gatekeeperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 AI extraction & review transparency — found from sitemap www.gatekeeperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Integrations, signature & exit — found from sitemap knowledge.gatekeeperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Integrations, signature & exit — found from sitemap knowledge.gatekeeperhq.com Checked 20 Oct 2026 Details →