Top 10 Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) Tools: Features, Pros, Cons and Comparison

Introduction

Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) is the management of an organization’s contracts from initiation and negotiation through execution, performance, and renewal or expiration. In plain terms, CLM tools help you standardize how contracts are requested, drafted, reviewed, approved, signed, stored, searched, and monitored so teams can move faster while reducing risk.

Common use cases include speeding up sales agreements, standardizing procurement and vendor contracts, running approval workflows across legal and finance, managing renewals and obligations, supporting audits with a searchable repository, and extracting key terms for reporting. Buyers should evaluate template and clause management, workflow automation, repository and search, collaboration and redlining support, obligation and renewal tracking, integrations (CRM, ERP, SSO, e-signature, storage), security controls (RBAC, audit logs, encryption, retention), reporting and analytics, admin experience, and rollout complexity.

Best for: legal ops, procurement, sales ops, finance, and compliance teams that need consistent contracting workflows across departments.

Not ideal for: individuals or very small teams with low contract volume, or organizations that only need basic e-signature without workflow, repository, and lifecycle tracking.

---

Key trends in CLM tools

• CLM becomes a cross-functional system, not “legal-only,” with intake workflows for sales, procurement, HR, and finance.
• More automation around approvals and routing to reduce bottlenecks and enforce policy-based controls.
• Increasing focus on post-signature value: obligations, renewals, performance, and portfolio visibility.
• AI-assisted review and data extraction expectations, paired with governance and human oversight to prevent errors.
• Integration-first deployments: CLM must connect cleanly with CRM, ERP, identity, and storage to be adopted.
• Stronger permissioning and auditability requirements, even for mid-sized organizations.
• Template and clause governance gets stricter to reduce off-template risk and inconsistent language.
• Better reporting expectations: cycle time, deviation from standard terms, renewal risk, and workload by team.
• More emphasis on self-serve contracting for business teams with guardrails.
• Standardization across regions and entities, including consistent metadata and controlled variations.

---

How we selected these tools

• Included widely recognized CLM vendors used in enterprise and mid-market environments.
• Balanced legal-first CLM platforms with options that fit procurement-heavy or sales-heavy contracting.
• Prioritized lifecycle coverage: intake, authoring, negotiation support, approvals, signing workflows, repository, and post-signature management.
• Considered scalability for multi-team rollouts, multiple contract types, and governance needs.
• Considered integration needs with common business systems (CRM, ERP, SSO, e-signature, storage).
• Considered admin and configuration flexibility for real-world process differences.
• Avoided guessing public ratings, pricing, or certifications when not clearly stated.

---

Top 10 Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) Tools

1.Ironclad

Ironclad positions itself as a contract lifecycle management platform focused on centralized contract visibility, workflow automation, and AI assistance across contracting stages. It is commonly evaluated by teams that want a modern CLM experience with strong workflow design and cross-tool collaboration.

Key features

• Central contract repository and visibility across teams (varies by configuration)
• No-code workflow automation for routing and approvals (varies)
• Collaboration patterns designed to reduce context switching (varies)
• AI assistance for drafting, redlining, and analysis (varies)
• Integrations and public APIs for connecting to existing systems (varies)
• Analytics and insights for portfolio-level visibility (varies)

Pros

• Strong fit for workflow-driven CLM programs that want standardization plus flexibility
• Useful for organizations that want contracting to work across multiple departments

Cons

• Requires clear governance for templates, metadata, and lifecycle ownership
• Advanced implementations can demand process design and change management

Platforms / Deployment

• Web
• Cloud

Security & Compliance
Ironclad states SOC II Type II on its product page.

Integrations & Ecosystem
Ironclad highlights integrations and APIs so teams can work within common systems and keep data flowing end-to-end.

• CRM integrations (varies)
• Collaboration tool integrations (varies)
• E-signature workflows (varies)
• APIs for automation (varies)
• Data export/reporting options (varies)

Support & Community
Varies / Not publicly stated.

---

2.Icertis

Icertis is commonly used for enterprise CLM programs that need structured lifecycle management, workflow governance, and portfolio-level visibility across departments. It is often evaluated where contract operations, compliance needs, and global scale are key drivers.

Key features

• Contract intake and request routing (varies)
• Template and clause management workflows (varies)
• Configurable approvals and policy-based routing (varies)
• Central repository, search, and metadata strategy support (varies)
• Obligation and renewal tracking concepts (varies)
• Reporting and analytics for lifecycle performance (varies)
• Integrations with enterprise systems (varies)

Pros

• Strong fit for enterprise-wide CLM standardization efforts
• Suitable when multiple departments must follow controlled workflows

Cons

• Implementation can be complex for smaller organizations
• Requires strong operating model for ownership and ongoing maintenance

Platforms / Deployment

• Web
• Cloud (varies)

Security & Compliance

• Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem
Often evaluated based on ERP/CRM alignment, identity controls, and ability to standardize contract data across many systems.

• CRM integrations (varies)
• ERP/procurement integrations (varies)
• SSO and identity integrations (varies)
• APIs (varies)
• Reporting exports (varies)

Support & Community
Varies / Not publicly stated.

---

3.DocuSign CLM

DocuSign CLM is typically considered when teams want contract workflows closely tied to signature execution and a structured repository for in-flight and executed agreements. It fits organizations that prioritize standard templates, approvals, and consistent handoffs into signing workflows.

Key features

• Template-driven contract creation (varies)
• Clause library and reusable language patterns (varies)
• Configurable routing and approvals (varies)
• Repository and search for executed and in-flight contracts (varies)
• Obligation and renewal concepts (varies)
• Workflow automation hooks and integrations (varies)

Pros

• Strong fit when signature workflow alignment is a core requirement
• Helps standardize contracting steps across teams

Cons

• Deep customization may require careful configuration and governance
• Advanced reporting and analytics needs may require additional planning

Platforms / Deployment

• Web
• Cloud

Security & Compliance

• Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem
Commonly assessed on identity, CRM, and storage alignment, plus clean handoffs between drafting, approval, signing, and archiving.

• SSO integrations (varies)
• CRM integrations (varies)
• Storage integrations (varies)
• APIs (varies)
• Reporting exports (varies)

Support & Community
Varies / Not publicly stated.

---

4.Agiloft

Agiloft is commonly chosen for configurable CLM implementations where teams want to adapt workflows to their internal contracting processes. It fits organizations that need a high degree of workflow and data model flexibility.

Key features

• Configurable workflows for request, review, and approvals (varies)
• Template and clause management concepts (varies)
• Repository, metadata, and search support (varies)
• Role-based access and permissions patterns (varies)
• Obligation, renewal, and milestone tracking (varies)
• Reporting dashboards (varies)
• Integration and API support (varies)

Pros

• Flexible configuration for unique internal processes
• Suitable for organizations that want strong admin control

Cons

• Configuration flexibility can increase complexity if not governed
• Rollout success depends on process clarity and admin ownership

Platforms / Deployment

• Web
• Cloud (varies)

Security & Compliance

• Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem
Often evaluated based on integration breadth and ability to fit into existing enterprise workflows.

• CRM integrations (varies)
• ERP/procurement integrations (varies)
• SSO (varies)
• APIs (varies)
• Data export options (varies)

Support & Community
Varies / Not publicly stated.

---

5.Sirion

Sirion is often evaluated for CLM programs that emphasize post-signature management, obligations, and performance-related governance across complex agreements. It fits teams that need operational oversight beyond contract execution.

Key features

• Contract repository and lifecycle tracking (varies)
• Obligation and milestone management (varies)
• Workflow support for governance and approvals (varies)
• Reporting on performance and lifecycle activities (varies)
• Collaboration workflows across internal stakeholders (varies)
• Integrations with enterprise systems (varies)
• Permissioning and audit patterns (varies)

Pros

• Strong for organizations that treat contracts as operational assets post-signature
• Useful when obligations and performance tracking are high priority

Cons

• May be more than needed for simple sales contracting workflows
• Requires disciplined data entry and ownership to realize full value

Platforms / Deployment

• Web
• Cloud (varies)

Security & Compliance

• Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem
Commonly assessed on enterprise integration fit and ability to connect contract terms to operational workflows.

• ERP integrations (varies)
• CRM integrations (varies)
• SSO (varies)
• APIs (varies)
• Reporting exports (varies)

Support & Community
Varies / Not publicly stated.

---

6.ContractPodAi

ContractPodAi is commonly considered by legal and business teams that want a CLM platform with workflow automation and structured contract storage, often with an emphasis on using AI capabilities for efficiency (varies by configuration). It fits teams looking for a centralized contracting hub that can scale across departments.

Key features

• Contract request intake and routing workflows (varies)
• Template-based authoring support (varies)
• Review and approval workflows (varies)
• Central repository and search (varies)
• Obligation and renewal tracking concepts (varies)
• Analytics and reporting (varies)
• Integration capabilities (varies)

Pros

• Useful for standardizing contracting across multiple teams
• Can support end-to-end lifecycle governance (depending on setup)

Cons

• Feature depth depends on edition, configuration, and rollout design
• Requires ongoing governance to keep templates and metadata clean

Platforms / Deployment

• Web
• Cloud (varies)

Security & Compliance

• Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem
Often evaluated on connectivity to CRM, identity, and storage so contract workflows fit into daily operations.

• CRM integrations (varies)
• SSO (varies)
• Storage integrations (varies)
• APIs (varies)
• Reporting exports (varies)

Support & Community
Varies / Not publicly stated.

---

7.LinkSquares

LinkSquares is often considered when teams want contract visibility and search across executed agreements, plus workflow support for contract processes (varies by product configuration). It fits legal ops teams looking to improve findability and reduce manual tracking.

Key features

• Central repository and search for executed contracts (varies)
• Metadata capture and organization patterns (varies)
• Workflow support for reviews and approvals (varies)
• Renewal and milestone tracking concepts (varies)
• Reporting dashboards (varies)
• Permissions and access control patterns (varies)
• Integrations (varies)

Pros

• Helpful for improving contract visibility and retrieval
• Useful for teams standardizing post-signature tracking

Cons

• Implementation still requires consistent metadata and ownership discipline
• Some organizations may need deeper authoring and negotiation workflow features

Platforms / Deployment

• Web
• Cloud

Security & Compliance

• Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem
Commonly assessed on fit with identity, storage, and sales/procurement systems for end-to-end workflows.

• SSO (varies)
• Storage integrations (varies)
• CRM integrations (varies)
• APIs (varies)
• Reporting exports (varies)

Support & Community
Varies / Not publicly stated.

---

8.Evisort

Evisort is commonly evaluated by teams that want better contract visibility, portfolio search, and lifecycle tracking, often with automation to reduce manual work (varies by configuration). It fits organizations aiming to centralize executed contracts and extract value from contract data for operations.

Key features

• Central repository and search (varies)
• Metadata and organization workflows (varies)
• Obligation and renewal tracking concepts (varies)
• Reporting and portfolio visibility (varies)
• Workflow automation for reviews and approvals (varies)
• Permissions and governance patterns (varies)
• Integrations (varies)

Pros

• Useful for consolidating contracts into a single source of truth
• Helps teams improve renewal management and visibility (depending on setup)

Cons

• Requires disciplined processes to keep data accurate over time
• Some authoring-heavy teams may want deeper drafting workflows

Platforms / Deployment

• Web
• Cloud

Security & Compliance

• Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem
Often evaluated on integration breadth to ensure contracts connect to CRM/ERP and downstream reporting.

• CRM integrations (varies)
• ERP/procurement integrations (varies)
• SSO (varies)
• APIs (varies)
• Exports to BI tools (varies)

Support & Community
Varies / Not publicly stated.

---

9.Conga Contracts

Conga Contracts is typically considered when teams want contract generation and lifecycle workflows that connect closely to CRM-driven sales operations (varies by environment). It fits organizations that want contracts to be generated from structured data and controlled templates.

Key features

• Template-driven contract generation (varies)
• Clause and language reuse patterns (varies)
• Approval workflows and routing (varies)
• Repository and contract search (varies)
• Renewal and milestone tracking concepts (varies)
• Reporting dashboards (varies)
• Integration options (varies)

Pros

• Helpful for standardizing sales contracting with data-driven generation
• Useful for teams that want consistent templates and structured outputs

Cons

• Integration and workflow setup can be non-trivial
• Some procurement-heavy organizations may need broader enterprise contract capabilities

Platforms / Deployment

• Web
• Cloud (varies)

Security & Compliance

• Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem
Often evaluated based on CRM alignment, template governance, and downstream system handoffs.

• CRM integrations (varies)
• SSO (varies)
• Storage integrations (varies)
• APIs (varies)
• Reporting exports (varies)

Support & Community
Varies / Not publicly stated.

---

10.SAP Ariba Contracts

SAP Ariba Contracts is commonly evaluated in procurement-led environments where contracting must align with sourcing, supplier management, and enterprise procurement processes. It fits organizations standardizing vendor and procurement contracts with strong process controls.

Key features

• Procurement-oriented contracting workflows (varies)
• Template standardization for supplier agreements (varies)
• Approval routing and governance (varies)
• Repository and search (varies)
• Renewal and milestone tracking concepts (varies)
• Integration with procurement processes (varies)
• Reporting and visibility (varies)

Pros

• Strong fit for procurement-centered contracting and governance
• Useful where enterprise procurement alignment is mandatory

Cons

• May be less ideal for sales-led contracting needs compared to sales-oriented CLMs
• Implementation success depends on process design and enterprise integration planning

Platforms / Deployment

• Web
• Cloud (varies)

Security & Compliance

• Not publicly stated

Integrations & Ecosystem
Typically evaluated based on ERP/procurement alignment, identity controls, and standardized process enforcement.

• ERP and procurement integrations (varies)
• SSO (varies)
• APIs (varies)
• Data export options (varies)
• Reporting integrations (varies)

Support & Community
Varies / Not publicly stated.

---

Comparison table (same 10 tools)

Tool Name	Best For	Platform(s) Supported	Deployment (Cloud/Self-hosted/Hybrid)	Standout Feature	Public Rating
Ironclad	Workflow-first, modern CLM programs	Web	Cloud	No-code workflow automation (varies)	N/A
Icertis	Enterprise-wide CLM governance	Web	Cloud (varies)	Lifecycle standardization at scale (varies)	N/A
DocuSign CLM	CLM aligned closely to signing workflows	Web	Cloud	Strong execution handoff (varies)	N/A
Agiloft	Highly configurable workflows	Web	Cloud (varies)	Configuration flexibility (varies)	N/A
Sirion	Post-signature governance and obligations	Web	Cloud (varies)	Operational contract oversight (varies)	N/A
ContractPodAi	Centralized contracting across teams	Web	Cloud (varies)	Cross-functional CLM hub (varies)	N/A
LinkSquares	Contract visibility and findability	Web	Cloud	Portfolio search and organization (varies)	N/A
Evisort	Contract repository and lifecycle visibility	Web	Cloud	Portfolio-level tracking (varies)	N/A
Conga Contracts	CRM-aligned contract generation	Web	Cloud (varies)	Template-driven generation (varies)	N/A
SAP Ariba Contracts	Procurement-led contracting	Web	Cloud (varies)	Procurement process alignment (varies)	N/A

---

Evaluation and scoring (same 10 tools)

Weights used:

• Core features – 25%
• Ease of use – 15%
• Integrations & ecosystem – 15%
• Security & compliance – 10%
• Performance & reliability – 10%
• Support & community – 10%
• Price / value – 15%

Tool Name	Core (25%)	Ease (15%)	Integrations (15%)	Security (10%)	Performance (10%)	Support (10%)	Value (15%)	Weighted Total (0–10)
Ironclad	9	8	8	8	8	7	6	7.80
Icertis	9	6	8	8	8	7	5	7.20
DocuSign CLM	8	7	8	7	8	7	6	7.25
Agiloft	8	6	7	7	7	7	7	7.05
Sirion	8	6	7	7	7	7	6	6.90
ContractPodAi	8	7	7	7	7	7	6	7.00
LinkSquares	7	8	6	7	7	7	7	7.05
Evisort	7	7	6	7	7	7	7	6.90
Conga Contracts	7	6	8	7	7	7	6	6.85
SAP Ariba Contracts	8	5	8	8	8	7	5	6.95

How to interpret the scores:
These scores are comparative and meant to help you shortlist based on a typical CLM program. A lower total does not mean a tool is weak; it can simply indicate a narrower fit (sales-led vs procurement-led, authoring-first vs repository-first). Use the totals to narrow to two or three options, then run a pilot that tests intake-to-approval speed, template governance, repository search, and your must-have integrations. Treat security verification as a procurement checkpoint, not a scoring shortcut.

---

Which CLM tool is right for you?

Solo / Freelancer

If you mostly sign a small number of agreements, a lightweight workflow may be enough, and a full CLM can be overkill. Focus on templates, a clean approval habit, and a searchable folder structure unless you have recurring renewals and obligations that you routinely miss.

SMB

---

SMBs usually benefit from standard templates, faster approvals, and a single repository so contracts don’t disappear in email threads. Prioritize ease of use, quick implementation, and integrations with your CRM and e-signature workflow, then add deeper obligation tracking later as volume grows.

Mid-market

Mid-market teams typically need multiple contract types, more stakeholders, and stricter governance. Prioritize workflow automation, permissions, a clause library strategy, and reporting that shows cycle time and deviation from standard language.

Enterprise

Enterprises should prioritize governance, auditability, scalability, and integration into ERP/CRM/procurement systems. Also prioritize a contract data model strategy (metadata, obligations, renewals) so reporting becomes reliable across business units.

Budget vs Premium

If budget is tight, start with the workflow that removes the biggest bottleneck: intake and approvals, template standardization, or renewals visibility. Premium CLM platforms tend to pay off when contract volume is high, stakeholder count is large, and post-signature risk is meaningful.

Feature depth vs Ease of use

If adoption is the main risk, prioritize UX and simple workflows, even if you sacrifice configurability. If governance is the main risk, prioritize policy-driven workflows, permissions, and auditability and invest in enablement and ownership.

Integrations & Scalability

List the systems that must connect: CRM, ERP, procurement, identity, storage, and e-signature. Then validate the end-to-end path: request intake, template selection, redlines, approvals, signing, repository storage, renewals alerts, and reporting.

Security & Compliance Needs

Treat CLM as a system that controls sensitive commercial terms and legal positions. Validate RBAC, audit logs, retention, and how external sharing works, and ensure the tool can support internal controls for legal and procurement governance.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

1) What does CLM mean?
CLM is the management of contracts from initiation and negotiation through execution, performance, and renewal or expiration.

2) What problems does a CLM tool solve first?
The biggest early wins are faster approvals, fewer lost contracts, consistent templates, and clearer accountability. After that, post-signature obligations and renewals tracking often drives major value.

3) Do I need CLM if I already use e-signature?
E-signature handles execution, but CLM adds intake, templates, clause governance, approvals, repository, and ongoing lifecycle tracking. If contracts still get stuck in review or lost after signing, CLM is usually the missing layer.

4) What features matter most for legal ops?
Workflow routing, clause and template governance, auditability, and a clean repository with reliable metadata. Also prioritize reporting on cycle time and deviations from standard terms.

5) What features matter most for procurement teams?
Supplier-facing workflows, standardized vendor templates, approvals, and strong integration into procurement or ERP processes. Renewal visibility and obligation tracking also matter for vendor performance governance.

6) How do I keep templates and clauses from becoming outdated?
Assign owners, enforce review cycles, and restrict publishing rights for high-risk templates. Tools can help, but governance and accountability are what keep language current.

7) Can a CLM tool reduce contract cycle time?
Yes, primarily through standard templates, automated routing, fewer manual handoffs, and better visibility into bottlenecks. Results depend on process design and adoption, not just the tool.

8) How should I run a CLM pilot?
Pick one high-volume contract type, define a target workflow, and run real requests through intake to signature. Measure cycle time, number of revisions, approval latency, and the quality of repository metadata after signing.

9) What are common CLM implementation mistakes?
Over-customizing early, importing a messy legacy repository without cleanup, and skipping role-based permissions design. Another common issue is not defining who owns templates, metadata, and renewal obligations.

10) What should I avoid when comparing vendors?
Avoid relying on marketing claims or public ratings as your primary decision input. Instead, test your real workflows, integrations, permission model, and reporting requirements in a structured pilot.

---

Conclusion

A CLM tool is most valuable when it standardizes how contracts are requested, drafted, approved, signed, stored, and managed after execution. Focus first on the workflow bottlenecks that slow revenue or procurement, then build a governed template and clause strategy with clear ownership. Shortlist two or three tools, pilot one contract type end to end, and validate integrations, permissions, audit logs, and renewal visibility before scaling. The right choice depends on your dominant motion (sales or procurement), complexity of approvals, and how much post-signature tracking you need.