whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Contract Management (CLM)

Precisely

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Precisely AB · www.preciselycontracts.com

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

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

Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds. The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.

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

Precisely alternatives, European ones first →

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

The General Counsel

Weighted verdict

Runs a three-lawyer legal team that negotiates every supplier and customer contract in Word with the other side's counsel. Wants approved clauses with fallbacks, redlines that survive the round-trip, and an approval on record for every deviation — not a sign-off by email.

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

Scored by The General Counsel

Panel median The General Counsel This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The General Counsel
Drafting, templates & clause library 2.5 of 5 2.5 of 5
Negotiation, redlining & approval 3.5 of 5 3 of 5
Repository, deadlines & obligations 3 of 5 2.5 of 5
AI extraction & review transparency 2.5 of 5 2.5 of 5
Integrations, signature & exit 3 of 5 3 of 5
European sovereignty 3 of 5 3 of 5
Pricing transparency 0.5 of 5 0.5 of 5

Drafting, templates & clause library

How this is scored

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

0 — No drafting at all; contracts are uploaded as finished files.

3 — Templates with simple placeholders, but no conditional logic, no clause library, and every draft still edited by hand by legal.

5 — Templates with variables and conditional clauses, a clause library with approved fallbacks, a questionnaire or form that lets business users generate standard contracts, and German-language templates supported.

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

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

Report an error

The General Counsel

Automated templates with variables, conditions and formulas, a short questionnaire that pre-fills everything else, and drafting straight out of HubSpot, Salesforce or Google Sheets are evidenced — that is the self-service generation I want for the business. But we found no public information on an approved clause library with fallbacks, clause versioning with an owner per clause, playbook flags on deviations from approved wording, or German-language and German-law templates, so I still cannot let legal hand the drafting keys to the business. 5 6 13 14

Report an error

Negotiation, redlining & approval

How this is scored

Getting from draft to agreed text with a counterparty and through internal sign-off: redlining in Word and in the browser, external collaboration, version comparison, approval workflows, and a record of who approved which version.

0 — No negotiation 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Repository, deadlines & obligations

How this is scored

Knowing what has been signed and what it requires: a searchable repository with metadata, notice periods 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

AI extraction & review transparency

How this is scored

Whether the AI that extracts dates and clauses or reviews a draft is disclosed, verifiable and controllable: named model provider and processing location, no training on customer contracts, extracted values shown with their source passage, and features the customer can switch off. A product without AI features is judged on stating so.

0 — 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Integrations, signature & exit

How this is scored

How contracts connect to the rest of the company and leave it again: CRM, procurement and ERP integration, e-signature (and which eIDAS level), 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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Who the contracting entity is, where contracts and their extracted data are hosted, and who the subprocessors are — including the AI and OCR providers the text is passed to. Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; weighted with care here because a contract repository holds a company's most confidential commitments and those of its counterparties.

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

Pricing transparency

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.

Report an error

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

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 4 dimensions proven

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

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

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

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

Sources (14)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Pricing page www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Privacy policy www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Terms of service www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Drafting, templates & clause library — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Drafting, templates & clause library — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Negotiation, redlining & approval — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Negotiation, redlining & approval — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Repository, deadlines & obligations — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Repository, deadlines & obligations — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  11. 11 AI extraction & review transparency — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  12. 12 AI extraction & review transparency — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Integrations, signature & exit — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →
  14. 14 Integrations, signature & exit — found from sitemap www.preciselycontracts.com Checked 13 Oct 2026 Details →