This page was rebuilt on August 27, 2026. Every price below was read directly from the vendor's own pricing page that week, and every vendor was checked to confirm it still exists as a company you can buy from. Five of the nine tools this article originally recommended have since rebranded, been absorbed into a larger platform, or stopped operating independently.
Why this list looks different from the others
Search for AI contract review software and you will find a dozen listicles that all name the same nine or ten vendors, describe their features in the vendor's own marketing language, and put the word "Quote-based" in the pricing column. That was true of this article too, in its original form. It named nine tools and did not contain a single dollar figure.
That is a failure of a buyer's guide, because price is the first question anyone actually has and the hardest one to answer. So this rebuild is organised around two questions that the other lists do not answer:
- Which vendors publish a real number? Two of the twelve covered here do. The rest require a sales conversation before they will tell you what it costs.
- Which vendors still exist? This market consolidated hard between 2023 and 2026. Several tools that still appear on "best of" lists — including lists published this year — are no longer independent companies, and at least one is a domain with an expired certificate.
Where a vendor publishes nothing, this page says so by name rather than inventing a range. Third-party sites will happily quote you a confident-sounding per-user figure for a tool whose vendor publishes nothing at all; those numbers are aggregated guesses, they are frequently stale, and repeating them as fact is how a buyer walks into a negotiation with a false anchor. This page does not reprint them.
What changed since this article was first published
The original version of this page was written in September 2025 and recommended Harvey, CoCounsel, Kira Systems, Luminance, Spellbook, LawGeex, ContractPodAi, Juro and IVO. Here is what has happened to that list.
| As originally listed | Status as of August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Kira Systems | Now Litera Kira. Acquired by Litera; sold as part of the Litera platform, not as a standalone product. |
| ContractPodAi | Rebranded to Leah. contractpodai.com now redirects to leahai.com, whose homepage states "ContractPodAi is now Leah". |
| LawGeex | Effectively a legacy brand. Its founders moved to Superlegal. As of August 27, 2026 the TLS certificate on www.lawgeex.com had expired a month earlier. |
| Harvey, Luminance, Spellbook, Juro, IVO | Still operating. None of them publishes a list price. |
Two more changes matter even though they were never on this list, because they removed two of the best-known contract AI products from the standalone market:
- Evisort was acquired by Workday, announced September 17, 2024. Its contract intelligence is now sold through Workday rather than as an independent purchase.
- Lexion was acquired by Docusign and folded into Docusign's agreement platform.
And one cautionary tale that every buyer in this category should know about:
Robin AI — one of the most heavily funded companies in contract AI — did not survive as an independent business. A funding round failed to gain traction, the company went into a distressed sale, its managed services group moved to the law firm Scissero in December 2025, and in January 2026 Microsoft hired a large part of its engineering team to work on Word's legal capabilities. It is worth being precise about that last point, because it is widely reported incorrectly: Microsoft did not acquire Robin AI. A Microsoft spokesperson told Legal IT Insider, "Microsoft has hired several employees from Robin AI. Microsoft has no plans to acquire Robin AI. We have nothing further to share."
If you are relying on a secondary source that tells you Robin AI was acquired by Microsoft, that source is not checking its facts, and you should be sceptical of its pricing claims too.
"AI contract review" describes four different products
Part of the reason price comparison in this category is so unsatisfying is that the category name covers four genuinely different products. Comparing a per-seat drafting assistant to a per-contract review service on price alone is comparing a hammer to a carpenter. Before you compare cost, work out which of these you are actually buying.
1. Extraction and due diligence
The oldest branch of the category, and the one that predates generative AI entirely. You feed it a data room of several thousand agreements and it pulls out the change-of-control clauses, the assignment provisions, the termination triggers. It is built for volume, and its value is measured in associate hours not spent on first-pass review.
Litera Kira and Luminance live here. Both are sold as platform deals to firms doing M&A diligence at scale, and neither publishes a price, because the buying unit is a firm-wide licence negotiated by procurement rather than a seat someone expenses.
2. Drafting and redlining inside Word
The branch that grew fastest after 2023. These tools sit in the document you are already working in and suggest language, flag missing provisions, and mark up the counterparty's draft. The unit of value is a lawyer's time on a single agreement, so pricing is per seat.
Spellbook and Genie AI are the clearest examples. This is also the branch Microsoft is now moving into directly — the reason it hired Robin AI's engineering team was explicitly to strengthen Word's capabilities for lawyers, which is worth factoring into any multi-year commitment you make to a standalone Word add-in.
3. Playbook enforcement and review-as-a-service
Here the product is not really software so much as a codified version of your own negotiating positions, applied consistently. You define what you will and will not accept; the system checks incoming drafts against that and flags deviations. Some vendors in this branch put humans in the loop for the final pass.
LegalOn, Superlegal and DocJuris sit here. Note that this is the branch where pricing most often moves away from seats and towards contract volume — Superlegal's credit model and DocJuris's volume-based fee are both expressions of the same logic, which is that the work is per-contract, not per-lawyer.
4. Full contract lifecycle management
The broadest and most expensive branch: intake, approval workflow, e-signature, repository, obligation tracking, renewals. Review is one feature among many, and you are really buying a system of record for the whole contracting process.
Juro, Leah and Ironclad are in this category, as is the Evisort technology now sold through Workday and the Lexion technology now inside Docusign. If you only want better first-pass review, this branch will sell you a great deal you do not need — and it is where implementation fees most often exceed the first year's licence.
The practical consequence is that a like-for-like price comparison is only meaningful within a branch. A $59 per-seat drafting assistant and a $999 per-month review service are not competing for the same budget line, and a vendor that answers a pricing question by explaining that it is "not comparable to point solutions" is usually telling the truth, even if it is also avoiding your question.
The pricing transparency table
All figures read from the vendor's own pricing page on August 27, 2026. "Not published" means exactly that — the vendor's pricing page exists but contains no numbers, or there is no public pricing page at all.
| Vendor | Entry price | Basis | Publishes a number? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Genie AI | Free tier; $59/month billed annually | Per user | Yes |
| Superlegal | $999/month billed annually | Review credits | Yes |
| Spellbook | Not published | Team size | No |
| LegalOn | Not published | Team size + modules | No |
| Juro | Not published | Contract volume | No |
| DocJuris | Not published | Contract volume | No |
| Litera Kira | Not published | Platform | No |
| Harvey | Not published | Enterprise | No |
| Luminance | Not published | Enterprise | No |
| Leah (formerly ContractPodAi) | Not published | Enterprise | No |
Two out of ten. That ratio is the single most useful fact about this market, and it is why comparing these tools on price is so much harder than comparing, say, practice management software.
The two vendors that publish real numbers
Genie AI — the only genuinely low-cost entry point
Genie AI is the only tool in this comparison with a free tier and a published per-seat price that a solo practitioner could pay on a credit card without talking to anyone.
Its published tiers are a Free plan at $0/month with limited AI tokens and exports locked until you upgrade; a Pro plan at $59 per month billed annually — presented as $708/year — or $75 per month billed monthly, covering one user and insights from 50 documents; and a Business plan at $259 per month billed annually ($3,108/year) or $320 per month monthly, covering five users and insights from 250 documents. Enterprise pricing is custom.
The annual-versus-monthly gap is worth noting: the Pro plan costs $75 monthly against $59 on an annual commitment, so paying monthly carries roughly a 27% premium for the flexibility.
What you should not expect at this price is the depth of review that an enterprise platform trained on a firm's own playbook will give you. The token limits are real constraints, and "insights from 50 docs" is a meaningfully different product from unlimited review. For a solo or very small firm testing whether AI contract review is useful at all, it is the cheapest honest way to find out.
Superlegal — priced per review, not per seat
Superlegal publishes three tiers, all billed annually: Essential at $999/month for 72 annual review credits, Advanced at $1,999/month for 180 credits, and Premium starting from $3,499/month for 360 credits. Contracts of ten pages or more consume two credits rather than one.
The credit model is unusual here and it changes the maths considerably. Superlegal's own page works the cost out to as low as $167 per contract on Essential, $133 on Advanced and $117 on Premium. That is a very different way of thinking about the spend than a per-seat licence: if your firm reviews a predictable number of contracts, you can calculate your cost per matter exactly, which is precisely what you cannot do with a seat-based tool.
The trap is the ten-page rule. If your work is mostly commercial agreements running well past ten pages, your effective credit consumption doubles and the per-contract figures above are optimistic. Count your last fifty contracts by page length before you sign anything.
The eight that will not tell you
Spellbook describes "Custom pricing for modern legal teams" and states that its pricing "is structured around the number of team members on your license." It offers a 7-day free trial, which is the closest thing to a price signal it gives you. Comparison sites circulate per-user ranges for Spellbook that differ wildly from one another; Spellbook itself publishes none of them, and none should be treated as a reliable anchor for a negotiation.
LegalOn shows three tiers — Core Review, Contracting Suite and Productivity Suite — each with a "Book a Demo" button in place of a price. Its page says: "You get the full platform, priced around your team size and the capabilities you need, so you're not paying for what you won't use."
Juro takes a slightly more transparent approach than most: it publishes an interactive calculator that asks about monthly contract volume, contract types, AI features and integrations. It still does not produce a public list price. Juro does publish one concrete commercial term worth knowing — new customers who sign in the same month they request a demo receive 20% off their first-year subscription. That is a deadline you can plan around, and it is also a reason not to start the conversation until you are actually ready to buy.
DocJuris is explicit about why it doesn't publish, and its reasoning is worth quoting because it is the honest version of the industry's position: pricing is sized to "contract volume, the apps you enable, and the integrations you need, not a seat count we can print in a grid." Its page also takes a swipe at competitors charging "$2,500 a seat with 200-seat minimums," which tells you something about the top of this market.
Litera Kira, Harvey, Luminance and Leah publish nothing. Harvey and Luminance do not maintain a public pricing page at all — both /pricing URLs returned 404 when checked for this article.
What "quote-based" actually costs you
The absence of a list price is not neutral. It has three concrete effects on what you end up paying.
You negotiate without an anchor. In a market with published prices, the list price sets the ceiling and your negotiation is about the discount. In a quote-based market, the vendor's first number is set by what they estimate you can pay — which is why firm size, letterhead and the fact that you mentioned a competitor all move the figure.
You cannot compare without a sales cycle. Getting comparable quotes from four vendors means four demo calls, four discovery questionnaires and typically three to six weeks. This is a real cost in partner time, and it is the main reason firms end up buying whichever tool they happened to see first.
Renewal is where the price moves. Several vendors in this category raised prices materially through late 2025 and 2026, and quote-based pricing means those increases arrive without warning at renewal. Ask for the renewal cap in writing during the initial negotiation, not at renewal.
Eight questions to ask on the demo call
If you have to have the sales conversation anyway, these are the questions that change the number or reveal the catch:
- What is the price per seat per year, on annual billing, at our headcount? Insist on a per-seat figure even from volume-priced vendors, so you can compare across models.
- What is the minimum seat count and the minimum term? Ten-seat minimums and multi-year commitments are common and are rarely mentioned unprompted.
- Is there a usage cap, and what happens when we hit it? Credits, tokens and "fair use" clauses all convert into overage charges.
- How are long documents counted? The Superlegal ten-page rule is public; equivalent rules at other vendors often are not.
- What is the maximum renewal increase, in writing? If they will not cap it, assume it will rise.
- Is implementation or playbook configuration a separate fee? For the enterprise tools this can exceed the first year's licence.
- What happens to our data if we leave, and if you are acquired? Given this market's consolidation record, the second half of that question is not hypothetical.
- Can we run a paid pilot on our own contracts before committing? A vendor confident in the product will agree; the answer itself is information.
How to choose, honestly
The right tool depends far more on your contract volume and document length than on any feature-by-feature comparison.
If you are a solo or two-person firm testing whether this technology helps at all, start with Genie AI's free tier and move to Pro at $59/month if it earns its place. The total downside is under a thousand dollars a year, and you will learn more in a month of real use than in six demo calls.
If you have predictable contract volume and want to know your cost per matter, Superlegal's credit model is the only one in this list that lets you calculate it in advance — provided you check your page lengths first.
If you are an in-house team or a firm with a playbook to encode, you are in quote-based territory whether you like it or not. Run at least three vendors in parallel, tell each one you are doing so, and do not start the process until you can act on a quote within its validity period.
Whatever you choose, verify the output. Contract review is a lower-risk application of legal AI than litigation research, because a missed clause is usually caught in negotiation rather than filed with a court. But the underlying failure mode is the same one documented in the Stanford study on legal AI hallucination rates, and the professional consequences of not checking are laid out in our review of AI hallucinations in court filings. Your duty of competence does not transfer to the vendor.
Before you deploy any of these on client matters, check your jurisdiction's position in our guide to state bar AI ethics opinions — confidentiality obligations around uploading client contracts to a third-party platform are the issue that catches firms out most often. If your practice also involves EU clients, the transparency obligations that took effect in August 2026 are covered in our EU AI Act guide.
Methodology
Every price on this page was read from the named vendor's own pricing page on August 27, 2026, and is quoted in the form the vendor presents it. Where a vendor publishes no number, this page records that fact rather than substituting a third-party estimate. Corporate status — acquisitions, rebrands and closures — was checked against trade press reporting and against the vendors' own live sites on the same date.
Prices in this category change frequently and quote-based pricing changes silently. Verify any figure here against the vendor's page before you rely on it in a budget. If you find something out of date, we would rather hear about it than leave it standing.