Contract Management (CLM)
Legartis
UK / wider Europe Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Legartis Technology AG · www.legartis.ai
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.
Legartis at a glance
- Vendor
- Legartis Technology AG
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Default not stated; pages mention Switzerland and Europe source, captured 13 Oct 2026
- Free plan
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Panel verdict
- The AI panel rates Legartis 1.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Legartis, a Swiss contract management vendor based in Zurich, is strongest at AI extraction control, scoring 4-5: every classification traces back to the playbook requirement and the contract passage, each requirement carries its own quality score from test sets with a published average F1 above 90 percent, and a human remains the final checkpoint. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 1 Oct 2026 to 13 Oct 2026; evaluated by the panel 15 Oct 2026. all sources
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
Legartis, a Swiss contract management vendor based in Zurich, is strongest at AI extraction control, scoring 4-5: every classification traces back to the playbook requirement and the contract passage, each requirement carries its own quality score from test sets with a published average F1 above 90 percent, and a human remains the final checkpoint. Negotiation and approval scores run 3-4 and integration and exit sits at a flat 4 — a Word add-in with traffic-light marking and per-requirement rules for automatic pass versus approval, a documented document-analysis API, and single sign-on via Microsoft Entra ID or any OAuth2/SAML provider. It is weakest at repository and obligations, 1-2, and at authoring and templates, 1-3: playbooks built from your own templates are evidenced and documents arrive as finished files, while we found no public information on contract generation, notice periods, renewal dates or obligation owners. Sovereignty runs 3-4 — storage on servers in Zurich, Switzerland and Europe is stated, while we found no published subprocessor list. Score spreads stay narrow and the flagged splits flag nothing; no prices appear on the captured pages.
Speaks for it
- Every AI classification traces back to the playbook requirement and the passage in the contract, with an audit trail
- Each playbook requirement carries its own AI quality score from test sets, with a published average F1 score above 90 percent
- Analysis runs inside Microsoft Word through the add-in, begins only when the user starts it, and hands unclear cases to a human
- A documented API covers document analysis, and single sign-on works with Microsoft Entra ID over OpenID Connect and any OAuth2/SAML provider
- Original documents are deleted automatically and irreversibly on request, and the pages state no data exchange with third parties
Held against it
- The evidenced product is playbook creation and review of finished documents; we found no public information on generating a first draft, template variables or an approved clause library
- Contract Management and Contract Insights are named as modules, but we found no public information on notice periods, renewal dates, reminders, obligation owners or department-level access rights
- We found no published subprocessor list naming which AI provider receives contract text, and the pages describe the AI learning from your corrections and decisions
- We found no public information on e-signature at any level, CRM or ERP integrations, or an export carrying documents out together with metadata, versions and audit trail
- No prices appear on any captured page — the only entry points shown are booking a demo or testing the product
Best for
- You need AI review of finished contracts in Microsoft Word against your company's playbooks, with every classification traceable to the contract passage
- Your legal team wants ready-to-use industry best-practice playbooks and playbooks generated automatically from your own templates
- You operate across borders and need procurement and sales teams reviewing contracts on their own in every European language
- You need single sign-on through Microsoft Entra ID or any OAuth2/SAML-compatible system plus a documented document-analysis API
Avoid if
- You need notice periods, renewals and obligations modelled with named owners and reminders — the captured evidence for the repository is module names and homepage promises
- Your teams need to produce first drafts from templates with variables or a clause library — the pages show documents arriving as finished files for review
- Your compliance process requires a published subprocessor list and a named model provider before contract text is shared — the independent sovereignty check returned unknown for subprocessors
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Drafting, templates & clause library | 1 of 5 |
| Negotiation, redlining & approval | 2 of 5 |
| Repository, deadlines & obligations | 1 of 5 |
| AI extraction & review transparency | 2 of 5 |
| Integrations, signature & exit | 2 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 1.5 of 5 |
Negotiation, redlining & approval
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Getting from draft to agreed text with a counterparty and through internal sign-off: redlining in Word and in the browser, external collaboration, version comparison, approval workflows, and a record of who approved which version.
0 — No negotiation support; versions are emailed back and forth outside the system.
3 — Comments and a version list inside the system, but no redline comparison, no Word round-trip, and approvals handled by email.
5 — Redlining with tracked changes, a Word add-in or round-trip that keeps changes, counterparty access without a licence, version comparison, and configurable approval steps by contract type or value.
8 — Conditional approval routing (value, deviation from playbook, risk), parallel and sequential approvers with delegation, an audit trail of every change and approval per version, and internal comments kept separate from what the counterparty sees.
10 — Negotiation is an auditable record: every concession traceable to who proposed and who approved it, approval rules an auditor or the board can read, negotiation duration reported per contract type, and the full history exportable with the signed version.
The General Counsel
The Word add-in marks identified passages in a traffic-light system, unclear cases are pushed to a human, and per-requirement rules decide what passes automatically versus what needs approval, with every classification traceable via an audit trail — a deviation from the playbook at least gets a human decision on record. But this is AI classification, not negotiation: we found no public information on tracked-changes redlining against a counterparty, external collaboration without a licence, version comparison, or approval routing by contract type or value. 1 6 7 9
The Procurement Analyst
The Word add-in checks a document in place and colour-marks segments against the playbook, unclear cases go to a human, per-rule settings define what passes automatically versus what needs sign-off, and every classification is traceable through an audit trail — that last part I like. However, I found no public information on redline comparison between versions, counterparty access, or internal approval routing with a record of who approved which version, so negotiation itself stays outside what I can verify. 1 6 7 9
The Sales Ops Owner
Review happens where my reps already work — in Word via the add-in — with a traffic-light system and per-requirement rules deciding what passes automatically and what needs approval, and every classification traceable in an audit trail. We found no public information on counterparty access without a licence, version comparison, or approval routing by contract value or discount, which is what I need to close standard deals without legal. 1 6 7 9
The IT Integrator
A Word add-in marks text segments in a traffic-light system with per-requirement rules for what passes automatically and what needs approval, and unclear cases are pushed to a human; we found no public information on counterparty collaboration without a licence, version comparison, or approval routing by contract type or value, and the audit trail evidenced covers AI classifications rather than negotiated changes. 1 6 7 9
The Data Protection Officer
A Word add-in marks text segments in a traffic-light system, analysis only starts when the user launches the add-in, and each requirement can be set to pass automatically or need approval with a human as final checkpoint. We found no public information on counterparty access without a licence, version comparison, or approval routing by value or contract type, so negotiation with the outside party and internal sign-off remain unevidenced. 1 6 7
The Skeptic
A Word add-in runs the analysis only when the user starts it, classifies text segments in a green-yellow-red scheme, passes unclear cases to a human and traces every decision back to the playbook requirement and the passage in the contract. We found no public information on a Word round-trip that keeps tracked changes, counterparty access without a licence, version comparison, or approval workflows recording who signed off which version. 1 6 7 9
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
The homepage promises requests, contracts and deadlines "handled to your standards", a Contract Management and Contract Insights module is named, and portfolio-wide risk analysis is claimed — but these are taglines, not mechanisms. We found no public information on how notice periods, renewals or obligations are modelled, who owns them, how reminders and their acknowledgement are logged, or how access rights per department work, and I will not run my notice deadlines on promises. 1 3 9
The Procurement Analyst
A Contract Management module is named and the homepage promises requests, contracts and deadlines handled to company standards, but I found no public information on notice periods or auto-renewals being modelled as fields, reminders escalating to a named owner, obligations tracked with status, or a portfolio report of what can be cancelled this quarter — which is the whole job for someone holding four hundred live contracts. Until that is documented, a deadline is a marketing word, not a modelled date. 1 3 9
The Sales Ops Owner
The homepage promises requests, contracts and deadlines handled to company standards, the legal notice names Contract Insights and Contract Management modules, and portfolio-wide risk analysis is claimed with cost reductions of over 90 percent. Beyond those statements we found no public information on modelled notice periods or renewal dates, reminders with named owners, repository search, or access rights by department. 1 3 9
The IT Integrator
Contract Management and Contract Insights modules are named and the homepage says requests, contracts and deadlines are handled to company standards, with portfolio-wide risk analyses claimed; we found no public information on metadata fields, notice periods and renewal terms, reminders with escalation, obligations tracked to owners, or access rights per department. 1 3 9
The Data Protection Officer
Contract Management and Contract Insights are named as modules and the homepage says requests, contracts and deadlines are handled, with portfolio-wide risk analysis claimed. We found no public information on notice periods, renewal reminders with escalation to named owners, obligations tracked to a person, full-text search of scanned contracts, or access rights per department — the only deletion statement we found concerns original documents after playbook creation. 1 3 9 4
The Skeptic
A module list names Contract Management and Contract Insights and the homepage promises that requests, contracts and deadlines are handled, but we found no public information on metadata fields, notice periods, renewal dates, reminders, obligation owners or department-level access rights. A tagline is not a repository; the notice period buried in an amendment has no evidenced home here. 1 3 9
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
Every decision traces back to the playbook requirement and the passage in the contract, each requirement carries its own quality score from test sets with an average F1 above 90 percent, a human stays the final checkpoint, and the vendor states no data exchange with third parties with servers in Switzerland and Europe. But no model provider or subprocessor is named, the pages say the AI learns from your corrections and decisions rather than committing not to train on customer contracts, and we found no published EU AI Act position and no account-wide switch to turn AI features off. 1 5 6 8 9
The Procurement Analyst
Traceability is genuinely strong: every decision runs back to the playbook requirement and the passage in the contract, each requirement carries its own quality score built from test sets, unclear classifications transfer to a human, and original documents can be irreversibly deleted on request. But I found no named model provider, no stated commitment against training on customer contracts — the pages instead describe the AI learning from users' corrections and decisions — and no published EU AI Act position or per-account switch-off. 1 4 5 9
The Sales Ops Owner
This is the strongest area: every AI decision traces back to the playbook requirement and the passage in the contract, each requirement carries its own quality score from test sets with an average F1 score of over 90 percent claimed, unclear cases are handed to a human, and original documents can be irreversibly deleted on request. We found no public information naming the model provider or subprocessors, the pages state the AI learns from user corrections and decisions without a commitment to no training on customer contracts, and the control the pages do show is that analysis begins only when the user starts the Word add-in. 1 5 6 7 9
The IT Integrator
Every decision traces back to the requirement and the passage in the contract, each playbook requirement carries its own quality score from test sets, a human remains the final checkpoint, and no analysis starts unless the user opens the add-in, with original documents deleted irreversibly on request; we found no public information naming the model provider, the AI processing location, or an EU AI Act position, and the documented behaviour is that the AI learns from user corrections and decisions rather than a stated commitment not to train. 1 4 6 7 9
The Data Protection Officer
Every classification is traceable to the playbook requirement and the passage in the contract, with an audit trail, a per-requirement quality score and a human final checkpoint — the right kind of verifiability, and processing only begins when the user starts the add-in. But no model provider is named, we found no public information on where the AI or any OCR runs, the vendor answers that it learns from customers' corrections and decisions with feedback loops from every use, and we found no public commitment on training with contract text or on switching AI features off. 1 7 8 9
The Skeptic
Credit where due: every classification traces to the contract passage, each playbook requirement carries its own quality score from test sets, an average F1 score above 90 percent is published, and a human stays the final checkpoint. But we found no public information on the model provider or where the AI processes contract text, the pages advertise learning from your corrections and decisions without a stated commitment against training on customer contracts, and there is no evidenced per-account switch for AI features beyond starting the Word add-in manually. 1 5 7 8 9
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 API for document analysis and SSO with any OAuth2 or SAML provider, set up with support's assistance, are evidenced. We found no public information on CRM, procurement or ERP integrations, e-signature at any level, webhooks or SCIM, or a documented export of documents with their metadata, versions and history — the only exit-adjacent statement is irreversible deletion of original documents on request during playbook creation. 5 10 11
The Procurement Analyst
A documented API with document analysis, single sign-on through Microsoft Entra ID over OpenID Connect, and support for any OAuth2 or SAML-compatible system give me a real connection surface, and the Word add-in sits where my lawyers work. I found no public information on e-signature at any stated level, integrations with CRM or ERP systems, or a documented export of documents together with their metadata, versions and audit history, so exit planning stays a conversation rather than a design. 7 10 11
The Sales Ops Owner
There is a documented API with specifications and document analysis through it, single sign-on via Microsoft Entra ID extended to any OAuth2 or SAML compatible system, and a Word add-in. We found no public information on e-signature at any level, on CRM or procurement connectors, on webhooks or SCIM, or on a documented export of documents with their metadata, versions and audit trail — the deletion of original documents on request is the one exit-related statement the pages show. 4 7 10 11
The IT Integrator
There is a documented API collection covering document analysis and API specifications, plus SSO via Microsoft Entra ID and support for any OAuth2/SAML provider; we found no public information on SCIM, webhooks, CRM or ERP integrations, e-signature at any level, or a documented export of documents together with metadata, versions and audit trail, and as the one who will migrate out of the system that silence decides the score. 7 10 11
The Data Protection Officer
A documented API with published specifications, single sign-on with any OAuth2 or SAML provider including Microsoft Entra ID, and a Word add-in are published. We found no public information on e-signature at any legal level, on CRM, ERP or storage integrations, or on a bulk export of documents together with their metadata, versions and audit trail. 7 10 11
The Skeptic
A documented API with specifications for analysing documents, SSO via Microsoft Entra ID and any OAuth2/SAML provider, and a Word add-in are evidenced, and original documents are deleted automatically and irreversibly on request. We found no public information on CRM, procurement or ERP integrations, on e-signature at any level, or on an export that carries documents out together with their metadata, versions and audit trail. 5 7 10 11
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 vendor presents itself as built in Switzerland, personal data is stated as stored on servers in Zurich, and a claim is made that all servers are in Switzerland and Europe with no data exchange with third parties. But no subprocessor list is published — above all the AI provider my contract text is passed to — the hosting infrastructure is unnamed, and we found no public information on certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5, so I cannot diligence the chain a contract repository demands. 1 2 5
The Procurement Analyst
Legartis Technology AG sits in Zurich and the pages state servers in Zurich, Switzerland and Europe, with web analytics on the vendor's own servers in Zurich — but the contracting entity is not an EU one. I found no public information on subprocessors, including which AI provider sees the contract text, nor published certifications, and for a repository holding a company's most confidential commitments that gap decides it. 2 5
The Sales Ops Owner
Hosting is stated concretely — personal data stored on servers in Zurich, with all servers in Switzerland and Europe — alongside commitments to no data exchange with third parties and irreversible deletion of originals on request, and the vendor is a Swiss company registered in the Canton of Zurich. For a system holding our most confidential commitments, we found no public information on a subprocessor list, on which AI or OCR providers process the contract text or where, or on certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5. 2 5
The IT Integrator
The privacy policy states data is stored on servers in Zurich, Switzerland and the German pages say all servers are in Switzerland and Europe with no data exchange with third parties; we found no public information on the underlying infrastructure provider, a subprocessor list including AI and OCR providers with locations, or certifications such as ISO 27001, and where the AI processes contract text is unstated. 2 3 5
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is Legartis Technology AG of Zurich and captured pages state storage on servers in Zurich, Switzerland and Europe. But we found no public information on the subprocessors — including which AI or OCR provider receives contract text and where that processing runs — and no published data processing agreement covering the counterparties' personal data held in every contract, which is the decisive gap for a repository of confidential commitments. 2 5 4
The Skeptic
The vendor is a Swiss company, the privacy policy states storage on servers in Zurich, and the German pages claim all servers are in Switzerland and Europe. We found no published subprocessor list — including whichever provider runs the AI that reads the contracts — and the independent sovereignty sourcing returned unknown for data residency and subprocessors; we found no public information on ISO 27001, BSI C5 or equivalent certifications either. 2 5
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
We found no public information on prices, tiers, pricing basis, add-ons or minimum term anywhere in the captured pages; the call to action is to book a demo or test the product. The annual invoice is therefore a pure sales conversation, which is exactly what I refuse to negotiate blind. 1 4
The Procurement Analyst
I found no public prices at all: five named modules and a prompt to book a demo or test the product, with no pricing basis, no tier contents, no add-on costs for AI or signature volume, no onboarding or migration fees and no minimum term that I can verify. Every invoice therefore starts as a sales conversation, which I cannot budget from. 3 4
The Sales Ops Owner
We found no public information on pricing at all — no tier prices, no basis per user, contract or module, no add-on prices, no onboarding or migration fees, and no minimum term, even though the product modules are named on the legal notice page. The only path evidenced is "Talk to us about your business case or test Legartis right away!", so the annual invoice is impossible to compute before a sales conversation and impossible to put in next year's budget. 3 4
The IT Integrator
We found no public price information on any captured page: no tier prices, no pricing basis, no feature-to-tier mapping, no add-on, onboarding or minimum-term figures; the only entry points shown are demo booking and a try-now call to action. 1 4
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public prices at all — no tier prices, no pricing basis per user or contract, no add-on, onboarding, migration or term information — only an invitation to book a demo or test the product. A buyer cannot compute any part of the annual cost from the captured pages. 1 4
The Skeptic
We found no public prices at all: no tiers, no pricing basis per user or contract, no add-on prices for AI or signatures, no onboarding or migration fee and no minimum term — only an invitation to talk to sales or test Legartis right away. A buyer cannot compute any part of the annual cost from the captured pages. 1 4
European sovereignty — proven facts
0 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined ⚠ unverified | — | uncited Report an error |
Questions about Legartis
Is Legartis European?
Yes, though not from the EU. whats-best.ai classifies Legartis as UK / wider Europe.
Where does Legartis store data?
The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026. The vendor’s pages mention Switzerland and Europe as hosting locations, per the vendor’s page captured 13 Oct 2026.
Does Legartis have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Legartis?
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: Legartis alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 1 Oct 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency, Subprocessors. Not confirmed on the vendor’s own pages as captured.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 36 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
- 5 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 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 support fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 2 sovereignty dimensions could not be confirmed on the vendor’s own pages and are shown as unknown. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (11)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.legartis.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Privacy policy www.legartis.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Legal notice www.legartis.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Drafting, templates & clause library — found from sitemap www.legartis.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 +1 earlier capture: 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Drafting, templates & clause library — found from sitemap www.legartis.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Negotiation, redlining & approval — found from sitemap knowledge.legartis.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Negotiation, redlining & approval — found from sitemap knowledge.legartis.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 AI extraction & review transparency — found from sitemap knowledge.legartis.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 AI extraction & review transparency — found from sitemap www.legartis.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations, signature & exit — found from sitemap knowledge.legartis.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 Integrations, signature & exit — found from sitemap knowledge.legartis.ai Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →