Contract Management (CLM)
Precisely
EU-Made Report an error0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by Precisely AB · www.preciselycontracts.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.
Precisely at a glance
- Vendor
- Precisely AB
- Headquarters
- Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026
- Data hosting
- Default not stated; pages mention the EU 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 Precisely 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Precisely AB, a Stockholm-based contract management platform, is strongest where its workflows are transactional: negotiation and approval scores run 6 to 7 on in-platform redlining, version history with compare mode, counterparty collaboration during drafting, and approvals routed by contract type, value or change, while integration and exit sits tight at 6, covering a REST API, HubSpot and Salesforce drafting, Zapier to 5,000+ apps, SSO with nine named providers, and signature levels up to qualified. how scores are made
- As of
- Vendor pages captured 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
Precisely AB, a Stockholm-based contract management platform, is strongest where its workflows are transactional: negotiation and approval scores run 6 to 7 on in-platform redlining, version history with compare mode, counterparty collaboration during drafting, and approvals routed by contract type, value or change, while integration and exit sits tight at 6, covering a REST API, HubSpot and Salesforce drafting, Zapier to 5,000+ apps, SSO with nine named providers, and signature levels up to qualified. The weak point is pricing transparency, scored 0 to 1: no price figures appear anywhere, the pricing page carries an ROI calculator, and plan names surface only through AI quotas of up to 100 documents per month for Professional and up to 5,000 for Enterprise. Scores spread widest on authoring and templates, 4 to 6: business-side judges credit self-service generation from CRM data, governance-minded judges call it template automation without an approved clause library, clause versioning or playbook deviation flags. Sovereignty scored 5 to 6 — EU data-at-rest and Azure OpenAI EU processing are stated, while the independently collected attributes mark residency and subprocessor exposure unconfirmed.
Speaks for it
- Negotiation runs in-platform with structured redlining, full version history and compare mode, and approvals routed by contract type, value or change
- Routine contracts generate from a short questionnaire over templates with variables, conditions and formulas, drawing data from HubSpot, Salesforce or Google Sheets
- Integration reach covers a REST API, Zapier to 5,000+ apps, and SSO with nine named providers plus Active Directory user provisioning
- Sixteen signing options span simple, advanced and qualified levels, including DocuSign qualified electronic signature and national e-IDs such as Swedish BankID and German Verimi
- The terms place data at rest in the EU with transfers outside the EEA only on prior written approval, and AI processing defaults to Azure OpenAI within the EU
Held against it
- No price figures, pricing basis or feature-to-tier mapping appear on any captured page, so the annual cost is not computable publicly
- We found no public information on an approved clause library with fallbacks, clause versioning with owners, or playbook deviation flags on drafts
- The only export described is contract lists, with no public information on an export carrying documents together with versions, approvals and audit trail
- AI is activated by default with deactivation by email or support chat, and the terms permit aggregated and anonymised use of AI-generated content rather than an explicit commitment that contract text is not used for training
- We found no public information on a published subprocessor list with locations, a data processing agreement covering contract data, or ISO 27001 or BSI C5 certification
Best for
- You need sales and procurement teams to self-serve routine contracts from CRM and spreadsheet data without waiting on Legal
- You negotiate with counterparties in-platform and want approvals triggered by rules on price, terms or team in sequential or parallel order
- You need signature breadth — simple, advanced and qualified levels across 16 signing options, including national e-IDs
- You want the hosting chain named: data at rest in the EU, AWS as database host, and AI processing on Azure OpenAI within the EU
Avoid if
- You must put a number in next year's budget before talking to sales — pricing transparency scored 0 to 1 with no public figures
- Your AI governance requires an explicit commitment that contract text is not used for training and a self-serve off switch — the terms permit aggregated and anonymised use of AI-generated content and handle deactivation by email or support chat
- Your exit plan depends on leaving with documents, versions, approvals and audit trail — the export the captured pages describe covers contract lists
The scores
| Criterion | Panel median |
|---|---|
| Drafting, templates & clause library | 2.5 of 5 |
| Negotiation, redlining & approval | 3.5 of 5 |
| Repository, deadlines & obligations | 3 of 5 |
| AI extraction & review transparency | 2.5 of 5 |
| Integrations, signature & exit | 3 of 5 |
| European sovereignty | 3 of 5 |
| Pricing transparency | 0.5 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
In-platform structured redlining with a compare mode, counterparty collaboration already during drafting, and approvals routed by contract type, value or change with sequential or parallel order and any, all or specific combinations of approvers are all evidenced. What decides the mark against a higher one: we found no public information on a Word add-in or round-trip that keeps changes, which is how I actually negotiate with opposing counsel, nor on delegation or keeping internal comments separate from what the counterparty sees; the audit trail covers views, edits and activity but I cannot see an approval record per version. 5 7 8 9
The Procurement Analyst
Negotiation happens in-platform with structured redlining, full version history and a compare mode, secure counterparty sharing during drafting, and approvals routed conditionally by contract type, value or change with sequential or parallel approvers in any, all or specific combinations. We found no public information on a Word round-trip that keeps tracked changes, delegation between approvers, or internal comments kept separate from what the counterparty sees. 5 6 7 8
The Sales Ops Owner
Structured in-platform redlining with version history and compare mode, counterparty collaboration, and approvals triggered by rules on price, terms or team with sequential or parallel order, mandatory or optional approvers and any/all/combinations is precisely the route-by-discount-and-value flow I run. I found no public information on a Word round-trip, delegation, or internal comments kept separate from what the counterparty sees. 5 7 8 9
The IT Integrator
This is well evidenced: structured in-platform redlining, full version history with a compare mode, counterparties filling in their details during drafting, and an approval engine with conditional routing on contract type, value or change, sequential or parallel approvers, any/all/combination requirements and a logged audit trail of views and edits. We found no public information on a Word add-in or round-trip that preserves tracked changes, approver delegation, or internal comments kept separate from what the counterparty sees. 7 8 9 5
The Data Protection Officer
In-platform structured redlining, full version history with compare mode, counterparty collaboration during drafting, and approval routing by contract type, price or team with sequential or parallel approvers in any/all combinations are documented. A Word round-trip, delegation, and an audit trail tied to each approved version are not shown, keeping this below the fully auditable level. 5 7 8
The Skeptic
Redlining, in-document editing and commenting, a compare mode over full version history and counterparty sharing are all evidenced, and approvals route by contract type, value or change with sequential or parallel order and any/all approver rules. What I miss is the paperwork of negotiation: we found no public information on a Word round-trip that preserves tracked changes, approver delegation, or internal comments kept apart from what the counterparty sees, and the audit trail is described for views, edits and activity rather than per approved version. 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
A smart archive with metadata tagging, search by field, clause or value, renewal and deadline reminders, folder- and team-level permissions, and exportable custom lists is evidenced. But we found no public information on notice periods modelled as their own fields, obligations and milestones tracked to a named owner, OCR over scanned legacy contracts, contract hierarchies such as framework and amendments linked, or reminders logged with acknowledgement — and a repository whose missed deadline cannot be traced is only half a system of record. 1 9 11 13
The Procurement Analyst
The smart archive is searchable by fields, clauses and values, with metadata tagging, automated reminders for renewal and signature deadlines that connect to Google Calendar, and visibility limited by team, role or region, while AI intake extracts dates, values and terms. We found no public information on notice periods or auto-renewal modelled as fields, reminders escalating to a named owner, obligations tracked with owners and status, contract hierarchies, or a portfolio report of renewals, value and counterparties. 1 9 11 13
The Sales Ops Owner
A central searchable archive with metadata tags, filters by fields and clauses, automated renewal and signature deadline reminders, folder- and role-based permissions, legacy import and exportable custom lists covers day-to-day tracking. I found no public information on notice periods modelled as fields, obligations tracked to owners with status, contract hierarchies, or portfolio reporting on renewals, value and counterparties. 1 9 11 13
The IT Integrator
The smart archive is a genuine repository: centralised storage, metadata tagging, search and filters by fields, clauses or values, automated renewal and signature reminders, import of legacy and externally signed contracts, visibility limited by folder, role, team or region, and exportable custom lists. We found no public information on notice periods modelled as fields, escalation of reminders to named owners, OCR of scanned contracts, obligations tracked with an owner and status, or linked contract hierarchies such as framework and amendments. 9 1 11 13
The Data Protection Officer
A searchable central archive with metadata tagging, automated renewal and signature reminders, AI-extracted dates, terms and obligations, and visibility limited by team, role or region are all published. We found no public information on notice-period modelling, full-text search over scanned contracts, or obligations assigned to named owners with status, and no deadline can be traced to a cited clause. 1 9 11
The Skeptic
The archive is real: metadata tagging, search by fields, clauses and values, folder- and role-based permissions, automated renewal and signature reminders that connect to Google Calendar, plus AI extraction of values, dates and terms into the repository. My worry is the notice period buried in an amendment: we found no public information on notice periods modelled as their own fields, escalation of reminders to named owners, full-text search of scanned contracts, or linking amendments to their framework agreements. 1 9 11 13
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 supplementary terms are real disclosure: Azure OpenAI hosted in the EU is the default and processes within the EU, quotas are fixed per plan, the output IP belongs to the user, and the feature can be deactivated by email or support chat. Against that, the terms reserve use of aggregated and anonymised AI-generated content to improve the service rather than committing not to train on our contracts, deactivation is by contact rather than a switch, the AI activates by default instead of off, and we found no public information on extracted values shown with their source passage, confidence per field, or an EU AI Act position. 3 11 12
The Procurement Analyst
The AI runs on Azure OpenAI within the EU by default with EU-only processing, per-plan document quotas, user-owned output and deactivation by email or support chat, alongside disclosure that aggregated and anonymised AI-generated content may be used to improve the service. We found no public statement excluding raw customer contracts from training, no extracted value linked to its source passage for confirmation, and no confidence per field or EU AI Act position. 11 12
The Sales Ops Owner
The AI supplementary terms name Azure OpenAI with all processing inside the EU activated by default, monthly document quotas per plan, user ownership of output, and deactivation on request by email or support chat. I found no public information on extracted values shown with their source passage, confidence per field, or an EU AI Act position, and instead of a no-training commitment the terms allow aggregated and anonymised use of AI-generated content to improve the service. 11 12
The IT Integrator
The AI terms are concrete: Azure OpenAI in the EU is activated by default with a stated commitment that no data is sent outside the EU for processing, plan-level document quotas, user ownership of the output, and deactivation on request by email or support chat. The same terms permit use of aggregated and anonymised AI-generated content to improve the service, and we found no public information showing extracted values linked to their source passage, per-field confidence, or an EU AI Act position. 12 11
The Data Protection Officer
The model provider is named — Azure OpenAI, automatically activated and processing everything within the EU — the AI features can be deactivated at any time, and the output belongs to the user. However, the supplementary terms only permit using aggregated and anonymised AI-generated content to improve the service, with no explicit commitment that contract text is not used for training, and extracted values are not shown linked to their source passage; we found no confidence indicators or EU AI Act position. 11 12
The Skeptic
The supplementary AI terms name Azure OpenAI with EU-only processing switched on by default, let you deactivate the features by email or support chat, and the privacy policy bars service providers from using customer data for their own purposes. But aggregated, anonymised AI-generated content may be used to improve the service, the AI arrives on rather than off, and we found no public information on extracted values shown against their source passage, per-field accuracy or confidence, or an EU AI Act position — exactly the verifiability a buyer needs before trusting an extraction. 3 11 12
Integrations, signature & exit
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
How contracts connect to the rest of the company and leave it again: CRM, procurement and ERP integration, e-signature (and which eIDAS level), SSO, an API, and a documented export of documents together with their metadata, versions and audit trail.
0 — No integrations, no API and no stated export; contracts can only be downloaded one by one.
3 — One CRM or storage integration and a bulk download of files, but metadata, versions and audit trail stay behind.
5 — A documented API, integrations with named CRM and storage systems, e-signature integrated with the level stated (simple, advanced or qualified), SSO, and a bulk export of documents with their metadata.
8 — Maintained integrations with systems common in DACH (SAP, Microsoft 365, Salesforce, DATEV-connected or procurement tools), qualified electronic signature available, webhooks, SCIM, and an export that includes versions, approvals and audit trail in an open format.
10 — Exit is designed in: a versioned API with a deprecation policy, a documented migration path in and out with the format stated, deletion after contract end confirmed, and the full repository — files, metadata, obligations and history — handed back without a professional-services fee.
The General Counsel
A REST API, contract drafting inside HubSpot and Salesforce, SSO across nine named providers with Active Directory provisioning, and a genuinely wide signature menu including Docusign qualified electronic signature, national e-IDs like Swedish BankID and German Verimi, and in-person signing are evidenced. But we found no public information on webhooks, SCIM, connections to SAP or DATEV, or an export that carries versions, approvals and the audit trail in an open format — the export evidenced is of contract lists — and nothing on a documented migration path or exit without a fee. 9 13 14
The Procurement Analyst
A documented REST API, Salesforce, HubSpot, Outlook, Teams, Slack and Zapier connections, broad SSO with AD user provisioning, and sixteen signing options across simple, advanced and qualified levels including Docusign qualified signature and national eIDs cover the working side well. We found no public information on webhooks, SCIM, SAP or DATEV connections, or a documented export of documents together with their metadata, versions and audit trail; the exports we found are contract lists rather than documents with their history. 9 11 13 14
The Sales Ops Owner
A REST API, Salesforce and HubSpot drafting from deal data, SSO with nine named providers plus Active Directory user provisioning, and simple, advanced and qualified signature levels with Dropbox Sign included in all plans give me the whole quote-to-signature path. I found no public information on webhooks, SCIM, SAP or DATEV connections, or a documented export of documents together with versions, approvals and audit trail. 1 13 14
The IT Integrator
A mixed picture from my seat: a REST API and Zapier to 5,000+ apps, native HubSpot and Salesforce drafting, Outlook and Teams touchpoints, single sign-on across nine named providers with users added and grouped via Active Directory, and — where the law demands it — qualified electronic signature via Docusign alongside BankID, MitID and Verimi-grade identities. We found no public information on SAP or DATEV connections, SCIM, webhooks, a versioned API with a deprecation policy, or the exit I care about: a documented export that hands back documents together with their metadata, versions and audit trail — the only export described is custom contract lists. 13 14 8 9
The Data Protection Officer
A documented REST API, HubSpot and Salesforce drafting, Zapier with 5,000+ connected apps, broad single sign-on with Active Directory provisioning, and e-signature levels stated up to qualified (DocuSign Qualified, BankID, MitID) are published. We found no public information on an export that includes versions, approvals and audit trail, on webhooks or SCIM, or on a documented migration and deletion path; the export evidence covers contract lists only. 9 13 14
The Skeptic
Integrations are the strong suit: HubSpot and Salesforce drafting, a REST API, Zapier to 5,000+ apps with signed contracts auto-filed to Google Drive, SSO across the major providers, and signature levels stated as simple, advanced and qualified, with DocuSign qualified electronic signature available. Exit is the blind spot: the captured export statements cover contract lists, and we found no public information on webhooks, SCIM, or an export that carries documents together with versions, approvals and audit trail in an open format. 9 13 14
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Who the contracting entity is, where contracts and their extracted data are hosted, and who the subprocessors are — including the AI and OCR providers the text is passed to. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted with care here because a contract repository holds a company's most confidential commitments and those of its counterparties.
0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and AI processing of unclear location.
3 — EU hosting offered as an option while the contracting entity is non-EU, or the subprocessor list is absent, or AI and OCR processing run outside the EU without saying so.
5 — EU hosting as standard and an EU contracting entity, but parts of the chain — AI models, OCR, email delivery, support — are non-EU without an explained safeguard.
8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessor list published including AI and OCR providers with locations, and a DPA covering contract data as the customer's processing.
10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: vendor, entity, hosting and every subprocessor European, AI processing within the EU on providers the customer can see, certifications (ISO 27001, BSI C5 or equivalent) published.
The General Counsel
The terms state data at rest stays on servers within the EU with no transfer outside the EEA without prior written approval, AWS hosts the platform database, the AI runs on Azure OpenAI within the EU by default, and a Swedish organisation number appears in the vendor's own footer. That is more than an EU-hosting option — but we found no public information on a published subprocessor list with locations, a data processing agreement covering contract data as our processing, or certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5, and since the archive holds our counterparties' confidential terms as well as ours, that chain is not yet visible enough for me to sign. 3 4 5 12
The Procurement Analyst
The terms store data at rest on servers within the EU with transfers outside the EEA only by prior written approval, the database runs on AWS, AI processing defaults to Azure OpenAI in the EU, and the site footer names Precisely AB with a Swedish company number. We found no public subprocessor list including AI and OCR providers with locations, no data processing agreement covering contract data, and no ISO 27001 or BSI C5 certification. 1 3 4 5 12
The Sales Ops Owner
The terms store data at rest in the EU with no transfer outside the EEA without prior written approval, the contracting entity is Precisely AB with a Swedish organisation number, and the AI terms put processing on Azure OpenAI within the EU by default. I found no public information on a published subprocessor list with locations, ownership, a data processing agreement covering contract data, or certifications such as ISO 27001. 1 3 4 5 12
The IT Integrator
The terms commit to EU data-at-rest storage with EEA transfers only on prior written approval, AWS is named as the database hoster, the AI chain runs on Azure OpenAI inside the EU, and the contracting entity appears as Precisely AB with a Swedish organisation number. We found no public information on the ownership structure, a published subprocessor list beyond AWS and Azure OpenAI, the AWS region, or ISO 27001 / BSI C5 certifications — the sovereignty pipeline also could not confirm the jurisdiction from the captured pages, so a DACH buyer verifies this in the DPA rather than on the website. 4 3 12 5
The Data Protection Officer
The contracting entity is Precisely AB in Sweden, data at rest sits in the EU with transfers outside the EEA requiring prior written approval, and both the AWS database hosting and the Azure OpenAI EU processing are disclosed. What holds this back is the rest of the chain: we found no published subprocessor list with locations, no data processing agreement covering the counterparties' personal data held in the contracts, and no ISO 27001 or BSI C5 certification. 3 4 5 12
The Skeptic
Provenance is Swedish — Precisely AB with organisation number 556963-5286 — the terms store data at rest in the EU and bar transfers outside the EEA without prior written approval, the database host is named as AWS, and AI defaults to Azure OpenAI processing entirely within the EU. What a contract repository deserves and I cannot find here: we found no public information on a published subprocessor list with locations, a data processing agreement covering contract data, or certifications such as ISO 27001 or BSI C5, and the independently collected sovereignty attributes mark entity, ownership, residency and subprocessor exposure as unconfirmed on the vendor's own captured pages. 1 3 4 5 12
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: the pricing basis (per user, per contract, per module), which features sit in which tier, add-ons for AI, e-signature volume or integrations, onboarding and migration fees, and the minimum term.
0 — No public prices at all; every tier is a sales conversation.
3 — A starting price exists, but the pricing basis (users, contracts, modules) or which features sit in which tier is unstated — the invoice is unknowable.
5 — Tier prices public with the pricing basis and main limits given, but at least one commonly needed piece (AI features, signature volume, integrations, extra users or onboarding) is unpriced.
8 — Every tier priced publicly with its basis and limits, add-on prices listed, onboarding and migration costs stated, minimum term and VAT treatment given.
10 — Complete price computability: annual invoice derivable for a given number of users, contracts and signatures, with every add-on, overage and implementation fee published.
The General Counsel
The pricing page shows an ROI calculator and the supplementary terms give plan names with AI document quotas — up to 100 documents per month for Professional plan users and up to 5000 documents per month for Enterprise users — but no monetary figure anywhere. We found no public information on prices, the pricing basis, which features sit in which tier, add-on pricing for signatures or integrations, onboarding or migration fees, or the minimum term, so the annual invoice is not computable from public pages. 2 12
The Procurement Analyst
The pricing page offers an ROI calculator and a free trial exists, and the AI terms distinguish Professional from Enterprise by monthly document quota, but no price figures, pricing basis, tier contents, add-on prices, onboarding costs or minimum term are public. A buyer cannot compute the annual cost from what is published. 2 4 12
The Sales Ops Owner
A pricing page and a free trial exist and I can see plan names with their AI document quotas and that the default signing provider is included in all plans, but I found no public price figures, pricing basis or feature-to-tier mapping anywhere in the captured pages. As a buyer I cannot put a number in next year's budget. 2 4 12 13
The IT Integrator
No prices are published at all: the pricing page carries an ROI calculator, and the only tier information I can find is plan names attached to AI document quotas in the AI terms plus the note that Dropbox Sign is included in all plans. With no pricing basis, feature-to-tier mapping, add-on, onboarding or minimum-term information, the annual invoice is a sales conversation — as the one budgeting migrations and signature volume, that is not computable from public pages. 2 12 13 4
The Data Protection Officer
We found no public prices on any captured page — only a free trial, an ROI calculator, and plan names implied by the AI document quotas of 100 per month on Professional and 5,000 on Enterprise. Without a single figure, the real annual cost is not computable from public pages alone. 2 4 12
The Skeptic
The captured pricing page shows an ROI calculator; we found no public prices, pricing basis, or statement of which features sit in which tier anywhere in the captured pages, so a buyer cannot begin to compute an annual cost. The only cost signals available are a free trial, the AI document quotas per plan, and Dropbox Sign included in all plans — even the plan names surface in the AI supplementary terms rather than on a price list. 2 4 12 13
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 ⚠ unverified | — | 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 Precisely
Is Precisely European?
Yes. whats-best.ai classifies Precisely as EU-Made.
Where does Precisely 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 the EU as hosting location, per the vendor’s page captured 13 Oct 2026.
Does Precisely have a free plan?
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 13 Oct 2026.
What are the best alternatives to Precisely?
As of 21 Oct 2026, the panel rates Tomorro (2.5/5), fynk (2.5/5) and Juro (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 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: Precisely alternatives.
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 13 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, 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.
- 10 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
- 6 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
- 5 data 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 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
- 5 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
- 3 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
- 2 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 support 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
- 3 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 (14)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 2 Pricing page www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 3 Privacy policy www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 4 Terms of service www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 5 Drafting, templates & clause library — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 6 Drafting, templates & clause library — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 7 Negotiation, redlining & approval — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 8 Negotiation, redlining & approval — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Repository, deadlines & obligations — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Repository, deadlines & obligations — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 11 AI extraction & review transparency — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 12 AI extraction & review transparency — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 13 Integrations, signature & exit — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
- 14 Integrations, signature & exit — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →