Ironclad, Agiloft, Conga and Juro, and Who Does the Implementation

You stop asking what they cost, because none of them will tell you, and start asking what each one is charging for. Ironclad quotes on which products you take and who deploys them. Agiloft quotes a license, then an implementation, then a support plan. Conga quotes on how much of its commerce suite you buy. Juro quotes on contracts per month, with users unlimited. So settle four of your own facts before you book anything: roughly how many agreements you sign in a month, how many of those are genuinely negotiated rather than sent as standard, whether you already own Salesforce or a Conga product, and who inside the business would run the platform once it is live. Those four answers determine which of these vendors will be fair to you. Not one of the four will run that arithmetic on your behalf, and for most of them the honest answer costs them a deal.

Rarely at the point of purchase, and almost always about a year in. The platform gets chosen carefully, configured by somebody who cared, and after that belongs to no one in particular. The template legal revised never made it back into the system. Two contract types exist because the second person could not find the first one. An approval chain still routes to a manager who moved departments in spring. Renewal alerts arrive in a shared mailbox nobody reads. At no point did anything actually break. It just quietly ceased to be anyone’s responsibility, and a contract system in that state is worse than a folder, because everyone believes it is being looked after.

Yours. The Zoho Contracts subscription is purchased by you, under your own name, and billed to you by Zoho. We hold administrator access inside it and at no point stand between you and your own account. Walk away from us tomorrow and the templates, the clause library, the executed agreements and the full audit history all stay exactly where they are. Across everything we run, Zoho Assist alone is the service where the license stays on our side.

Plenty of companies genuinely would be, and it is better to read that here than to discover it once the contract has been countersigned. If you sign a few hundred agreements a month across several jurisdictions and you have a legal operations person to own the platform, one of these four plus that person will beat any retainer we could offer. Juro in particular is worth an hour of your time before you speak to us, because it is priced on the thing you would actually be buying. It becomes worth paying somebody else on the day nobody in the building can say which version of the master services agreement is the current one.

Nobody can tell you, and anyone who does is inventing it. Not one of these vendors publishes a rate, and each prices on a different variable, so there is no arithmetic that produces a ranking. What you can do is work out which variable is smallest for you. Signing few contracts but with a lot of people touching them: Juro’s volume banding with unlimited users is likely to read well. Already running Conga for quoting or billing: adding the contract module is cheaper than buying a platform standalone anywhere else. Wanting a license and nothing more: Agiloft at least separates implementation out, so you can see what you are declining. And wanting to know any of this before you speak to a salesperson: none of them will oblige, which is itself a fact worth weighing.

Nothing visible, which is exactly the problem, because a contract system in decline does not report a single fault along the way. Renewals extend on terms nobody re read. Templates drift out of step with the clause language legal actually wants. Obligations sit against people who left. There is no support tier that covers this, on any of the four. Agiloft sells support plans as a separate line, Ironclad sells an enhanced success plan as an add on, Conga sells professional services and training, and Juro tailors the help to how complex your workflows are. All of that assists your team in operating the software, which is an entirely separate matter from whether anybody will warn you the software has stopped describing how you contract. With us, reading the obligation and renewal reporting at a set interval is covered by the fee, which makes catching it our obligation rather than another item on your list.

No, and the companies that phase it land better than the ones that flip everything across in a single weekend. The order that tends to work is to begin with the agreement you send most often, then anything with a renewal date falling inside the next quarter, then the rest as they come up for signature. The first group carries almost all the volume and the last carries almost all the tidying, and a decent share of the old agreement types prove not to need a template at all, having been used twice in three years.

Yes. What it turns into, in practice, is a rebuild wearing the word cleanup. We read through whatever is configured today, surface the two templates that duplicate each other and the approval chain that has been failing quietly, find the clauses that say the same thing in three versions under two names, and decide which one takes precedence where they contradict each other. That last decision is usually where most of the hours go. An inherited setup will tell you precisely what was configured and absolutely nothing about the reasoning behind any of it.

Most of them land inside four to six weeks, and it runs longer wherever legal and sales still disagree about who owns an approval. Configuring Zoho Contracts itself takes days. What eats the calendar is agreeing which agreements are standard and which are genuinely negotiated, getting the clause language signed off once rather than three times, and then the first month of live agreements, which needs a complete cycle behind it before anybody declares this done.

Possibly nothing at all, and reaching that conclusion on a first call is a fine outcome from where we sit. Somebody who genuinely owns this will beat a monthly retainer without much effort, because they are in the detail weekly and know which agreements carry risk. The question that decides it is whether the work is truly on their list. Reviewing a clause library in a quarter where every contract got signed and nobody complained is exactly the kind of work that goes on looking safe to defer by another three months, and then another three.

Two of them, and both come up often enough that we tend to answer before the question has finished. If you sign a handful of agreements a year and they are all the same one, you do not need a contract platform at all, let alone somebody to run one for you, and a well named folder is a perfectly respectable answer. And if you are contracting at the scale these four vendors are built for, with a legal team and an operations lead already on the payroll, buy one of them and staff it properly. We would rather say so on a first call than once contracts have been signed.

You will hear it from us before an invoice exists, because surfacing exactly that is what the fit review is there to do. Often the real problem is that nobody has agreed which agreements need legal review and which do not, or that sales and finance each believe the other one approves discounts, or that contracts are slow because eleven people sit on the approval list and four of them were added by accident. Each of those is worth confronting before anything else, and no platform on this page touches any of them.

Five hundred dollars a month, per organization. That number is printed on the Managed Zoho Contracts service page, and it stands regardless of how many agreements you sign, how many people touch them or how many contract types you run. Your Zoho Contracts subscription is a separate purchase, made directly with Zoho, and it remains in your name.

Thirty days of notice closes it out. Nothing moves, because the subscription was always yours. Administrator access comes back to you, and we leave behind a written account of what each template and contract type is for, why the approval chains are shaped as they are, and where the obligation dates came from, so nobody has to reconstruct the reasoning afterward. We also write down what we would have done next.

The agreements you send most often, with the last signed copy of each. Who approves what today and who is supposed to. The contract types you already know are missing. And your renewal dates for the next two quarters, or the honest admission that nobody has them written down, which is common and is not a problem. Those lists always turn up half finished, which is completely normal. What they give us is the shape of the work, and the fit review supplies whatever is missing.