Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management Platform

My main use case for Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) is uploading all contracts and creating the contract repository. I also create spend reports based on the orders that have been placed. I use Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) for all of the sourcing documentation that I do for RFP, RFX, and auctions. I use it more as a centralized contract repository because it is easier for me to share the links within the teams. I am obviously exploring various modules within the CLM side of Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) to cater to our requirements, which I have been discussing with them.

Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) makes it easier to share links within our teams by providing a centralized contract repository, which I need in the global procurement area where I work on various contracts: mid-size contracts, lower-hanging fruit contracts, and the big-ticket contracts. I essentially need to have a contract repository similar to a Coupa, an Ariba, an SAP workspace, a OneDrive, or a SharePoint. Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) gives me that end-to-end CLM functionality, and it really helps me upload all of the contracts for various projects that I do. I plugged it with Teams. So, for example, if one of my VPs or one of my business unit leaders needs to access a specific contract, I have the admin access, so I can put the permissions in place. Depending on the role and the specification of the requirement in terms of the use case from the business side, I am able to share those links based on what use case and what requirements they have so that they can easily access the contract and understand what they have agreed to. I also use it more in terms of doing the contract redlining and contract review, which is the initial step before I sign off and agree on the contract.

I have summarized my main use case for Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) and how I use it day-to-day, as well as how it is helping us from a day-to-day procurement and stakeholder management perspective.

The best features Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) offers include the ease of working. The platform is very easily accessible. It is very easy to comprehend and easy to work with from a day-to-day perspective. It is also very useful for stakeholders to access the specific contracts because you have the option to download the signed contract. They know when the contract was signed, and it has a very good treatment of how the contracts are stored. For example, I have done an overarching MSA, and within that, I have done a SOW, an order form, and probably a change request. So I am able to drill down right up to L3 or L4 in terms of taxonomy of spend. At the same time, I am able to drill down based on the overarching contract and what the sub-work orders or sub-SOWs are within those contracts, plus the change order notifications. This gives me the entire length and breadth of visibility. At the same time, it has all the orders as well because our order management system, the PO, is also enabled within the CLM database.

The taxonomy and the ability to drill down into different contract levels help my team significantly. For example, if a new person in procurement joins and wants to understand which taxonomies and subcategories they are supporting, and they want to have a spend overview based on the orders that are being placed, Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) gives that particular view. I have Tableau plugged in with Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) as a front-end system that provides the order management view of the entire spend taxonomy. It also provides a drill-down in terms of which suppliers I have been working with for the specific categories. At the same time, it provides the spend and details on the contracts that I have with them, whether it is a specific SOW, a bespoke agreement, or an MSA. It has the links and the orders that have been placed. It gives a complete view from a taxonomy perspective where I can drill down based on the type of spend. For example, within IT, I have hardware, software, and services. Within services, I have IT professional services, SaaS, fixed-price services, time and material, IT staff, and IT security services. I am able to drill down based on L3, L4 taxonomy.

Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) could be improved in the area of catering more from a CLM perspective. Unlike vendors in this area like Ariba, Coupa, Icertis, and Ivalua, which also provide the sourcing side—RFX, RFP, RFI, auction—through the tool, that area within Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) is lacking. I would be happy to see those modules well-placed and well-balanced based on how other competitors are catering to that requirement. I would also like to see various enhancements within the dashboard and customization based on client and customer requirements. That is something that I would like to see more within the dashboard and the tool.

If I had to pick one area where Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) could be improved, it would be better slice-and-dice options within the dashboard. That is something that is very important and critical for me.

I chose 8 out of 10 because there are certain areas where Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) would need to look at what their competitors are doing. CLM is a very hot area for procurement because it is used by direct and indirect procurement folks. Based on those requirements, use cases, and especially based on what clients need and how their competitors are performing, I think there is room for improvement on the enhancement side, improving the overall customer experience on the dashboard, having more layouts, and having the option to slice and dice the spend and the orders. It would also be good to have different charts and infographics based on the contracts that have been uploaded, which provides a picture to the procurement person. For example, when they are doing a renewal or want to work with the same vendor, it provides some sort of ammunition to make an informed decision and ensure that the data coming out of the tool represents factual insights. This will help drive savings, better outcomes with the supplier, and better stakeholder engagement. It is all linked to how the tool can be more efficient and effective.

I have been using Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) for more than six years in different capacities.

Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) is stable.

Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM)'s scalability is good because I can add users, and I have user and license provisioning as well. I do have that option within the contract.

Customer support for Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) is good because they provide 24/7 customer support. Overall, my experience has been good.

I would rate the customer support 10 out of 10. Whenever there is a query, they always provide feedback. A ticket is created, and they address the ticket in less than 24 hours.

I have been using this solution without previously using a different one.

I definitely saw a return on investment in terms of time saved, cost reductions, and improvements in compliance. At the same time, I also saw ease of working on the tool. Their technical help is 24/7, and they have an AI bot plugged into the system. For example, if the dashboard freezes or if a specific group is not able to get access to the tool, all of that is handled through their bot. They have multiple questions within that, and based on their FAQs, I can decide which one I want to know and drill down. If there is a specific question that is not captured within the FAQs, I can run it through their bot, which provides responses in real-time. That is a great advantage, especially for stakeholders who take time to understand the platform and the tool.

I do not generally let employees go, so it is more about how I can improve the experience of the tool. But overall, I have definitely seen a 5% to 10% savings in terms of how contracts are managed and how they can be done in a more systematic way.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing has been overall good. I generally do multi-year agreements with them. Based on the total contract value, I decide savings and user licensing, and look for an optimized cost flexibility model with better payment terms. Overall, they have been pretty good.

Before choosing Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM), I evaluated other options including SAP Ariba, Tableau, Cognos, Ivalua, Icertis, and the GE solution from different vendors.

I would definitely say that Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) tool is quite good, but I would give the caveat that I should also have discussions with their product team about customization, dashboard creation, and infographics. If I am looking for specific real-time insights and data, I should discuss how that can be funneled. Those are the things that I would call out. But apart from that, the tool does serve its purpose. I have provided everything in a very articulate and lucid manner, and that is what I would like to convey. I give this review an overall rating of 8 out of 10.

My main use case for Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) is to help our colleagues in Siemens digitize the contract lifecycle management and automate the contract signing process.

Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) has positively impacted my organization by eliminating manual contractual signing within the company, although we still have some manual signing or manual contract processes with vendors outside the company. Within the company, you can see the status of the contract, whether it is in signing or who is left to sign, and you have a single platform to manage it all. Previously, we were using a different tool that was slow and not very user-friendly, leading to many problems getting users onto the platform. Many were still trying to sign contracts through email, resulting in lost contracts since our policy requires keeping contracts in our systems for ten years. With Agiloft, everything is organized in one place, with data in tables and our own archival elsewhere in our cloud. Everything is in Agiloft cloud, making data management more streamlined.

Agiloft automation is a good feature that stands out to me, and I also appreciate the tables that they provide and the connection from one table to another, as well as the integrations between Adobe for the signing process to Snowflake for the data archival. Additionally, they sometimes provide experts to support you along the way and do the initial setup for your company needs while giving you a period of time where you can approach them for any doubts or any changes that you may need to do. Even after that period expires, you can still reach out to them for additional support, though there is a monetary cost involved. Overall, the experts that they assign you really help you, and the initial setup they do is comprehensive.

The connection between the tables, for example, which we call Rules and Actions, is the most valuable feature for my team because it helps you move the process from one table to another, bringing together contracts and services within a contract, which is another table. This feature also helps you to connect to and talk to different systems, and there are thousands of connectors available that you can use on your platform. I have not tried their AI capabilities yet, but I attended a workshop from them that offered valuable insights.

You can build automation workflows similar to robotic process automation with Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM), which is an improvement point since you can create those processes or automations to avoid doing things manually. An area for enhancement that I feel could be improved is the user interface, and if I have to suggest something to add to Agiloft platform, it is the presence of logs or history. Currently, when changes are made, it is very difficult for someone else to find what has been changed, so we have faced issues where employees who did those developments left the team and the handover was not complete. If we had a common place where we can find logs or history of what was changed, by whom or when, it would really enhance the platform in my opinion.

There are many improvement points for Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM). For example, better logging can greatly help users navigate the complex system with numerous connectors, rules, and actions. Finding where mistakes occur can be time-consuming; thus, improving the search functionality is essential. Furthermore, enhancing workflow processes, similar to robotic process automation, can yield better results. The user interface and development platform need improvement as well since there is currently no provision for writing code, which is essential in a low-code environment. While Agiloft allows for small code scripting with Ruby and others, having an easier way to execute something such as Python would be beneficial, and the current complexity in executing codes is unnecessary and requires streamlining.

I have been using Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) for approximately seven months.

Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) is quite stable.

The customer support for Agiloft is represented by a couple of experienced individuals who assist us, though their support tool for raising queries or tickets for addressing problems could use improvement. It is neither great nor bad, but there is room for growth.

Previously, we were using a different tool that was slow and not very user-friendly, leading to many problems getting users onto the platform. Many were still trying to sign contracts through email, resulting in lost contracts since our policy requires keeping contracts in our systems for ten years. With Agiloft, everything is organized in one place, with data in tables and our own archival elsewhere in our cloud. Everything is in Agiloft cloud, making data management more streamlined.

Expecting a lot of work and being involved in the setup when Agiloft sets the system for you is my advice to others looking into using Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM). Engaging in the beginning helps you understand the platform, and it is important not to focus too much on the basic training offered, as it may not meet your organizational needs. My advice is to be engaged throughout the setup process of your organizational platform from Agiloft.

As a developer, I do not possess metrics regarding return on investment, but as a small team with many customers, we have noticed a decrease in the number of tickets related to various issues every month, indicating that things are working as expected. Since finance and pricing mistakes are not tolerated, it is encouraging to see a decline in ticket numbers over the last year, although I cannot provide exact metrics.

I did not manage the pricing, setup cost, or licensing since when I joined the team, the setup was already done by Agiloft when purchasing the service. Siemens developers need only provide a specification of what they need for the setup to be handled.

I would rate this review overall as a three out of five.

My main use case for Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) includes contract review, submissions, editing the contracts, ensuring that our legal team has a complete repository of all the contracts with terms and conditions, making sure that there are playbooks and templates defined for typical contracts, and finding out anomalies.

A specific contract process where Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) helped me was when it easily picked up payment terms. For instance, if we had a standard payment term of Net 45, and the contract signed with a vendor did not use that, it finds that out. There are many different terms it automatically detects and identifies, notifying the contract administrators. If our policy is to avoid three-year contracts, it flags those and notifies us as the IT leaders. Another example is when the contract language differed from our standard templates, it compares and contrasts and identifies challenges with insurance terms and coverage.

The best features of Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) include creating a playbook and integrations with the Microsoft tech stack.

The integration with the Microsoft tech stack helped my workflow by ensuring that Microsoft single sign-on is working, along with integration with SharePoint and other Microsoft toolkits such as Microsoft go-to-market solutions and Microsoft Business Online. The playbook creation feature provided a good, easy way to create playbooks for standard agreements, subscription agreements, rental agreements, and contracts.

Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) has positively impacted my organization by improving the lifecycle of contract reviews and approvals, which may have saved some time for the legal team to do other work.

It is hard to estimate time saved for my legal team because when you start using a new tool, the time it takes to learn it and get settled in varies. After everything settled, the review time reduced from three hours to about two hours for contract reviews.

Every software can improve, so better integration with the Oracle financial system and out-of-the-box integrations would certainly add a lot more value, particularly for procurement and sales contracts.

I used Agiloft Lifecycle Management twice in my prior companies, each one for about nine months to a year.

Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) is stable.

It is hard to say much about Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM)'s scalability as we did not have to expand or scale beyond our initial need.

We had engaged the professional services of Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) for our project and hypercare post-go-live, so customer support engagement was minimal to none during that period. Post-go-live, we did not have to contact customer support much, as it was all through professional services.

We did not switch to a different solution before using Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM); when I joined, it was already in place, although I have been familiar with other contract lifecycle tools such as Salesforce's Contract Lifecycle Management, Oracle's CLM tool, and Ironclad CLM tool.

I have seen a return on investment with Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM); since the contract was renewed after a year, it certainly showed value. Regarding time saved, it amounts to about one hour for a legal contract review person, and there are about three people in the company, totaling three hours a day saved.

I believe my organization evaluated other options, including Ironclad, although I wasn't there to confirm this.

My advice to others looking into using Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) is to focus on integrations, focus on outcomes, and not just the template. Focusing solely on the legal aspect will not yield the desired results; it is important to look at a complete end-to-end process. I have rated this review seven out of ten.

My main use case for Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) was for full lifecycle management from start to finish. However, we never really got to full functionality. We did have a consultant that was helping us implement, but it was very choppy and never quite completed and continued at just excessive costs in our opinion. So we ended and never really had full use of Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM).

A specific example of a process or task I tried to manage with Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) is requests. Requests were clunky. Once we got it into the system, the process did not work well for redlining and negotiations. It basically became a document repository and that is really where we used it most. I also never really got the full functionality out of reporting, so I ended up exporting to spreadsheets and using that for metrics.

The best features Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) offers, in my view, are its possibilities to work well. We just again never fully implemented. The best use that we got out of it was creating and utilizing contract ID numbers that were system generated.

Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) has helped us realize what we were lacking and helped us choose a replacement vendor that was better suited to our needs.

Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) can be improved with easier implementation and having AI and online self-user tools to implement versus having expensive consultants that did not really understand or help and assist in our implementation.

I have been using Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) for about three years before we terminated.

Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) is not stable, as we do not use it today.

My experience with customer support for Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) was not the best. When we were tired of interacting with the consultant, we tried reaching out to customer support through our IT office, and we were given support in a different country, which is difficult for us using government US government contracting. However, they did help somewhat.

I did not previously use a different solution before Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM). We were using manual processes, spreadsheets, and email.

I have not seen a return on investment with Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) and I received none of those benefits.

My experience with pricing, setup cost, and licensing was that it was very expensive for what we received.

Before choosing Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM), I did evaluate other options such as Cobblestone and I cannot remember the other one.

Based on my experience with Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM), we looked for a simpler solution, one that is not the full contract lifecycle management system, but the current system that we use uses AI and implements workflows that streamline the process.

Regarding Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM)'s AI capabilities, I think its governance and security worked. Regarding Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM)'s AI capabilities, I am unable to comment on its accuracy and reliability of output.

My advice to others looking into using Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) is to understand your needs before you buy. It may not be worth the purchase price. I would rate Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) overall as a three out of ten.

My main use case for Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Managment (CLM) is contract management, negotiation, and the repository side.

A specific example of how I used Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Managment (CLM) for contract management or negotiation involves my previous role responsibilities where I reviewed NDAs. We created a workflow where the contract request was submitted into Agiloft, an intake form was completed, and it would flow through to legal for legal review, where I would handle drafting, either populating a template or reviewing third-party paper and sending it back to the requester so that they could reach out to the counterparty. After the negotiation and review took place, I used Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Managment (CLM) to store the signature copy.

Some of the best features Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Managment (CLM) offers are the intake where we could create a form based on the contract type that allowed the requester to fill out the details of the specific request, which was very helpful for our legal review, although I did not get to use any of their AI tools.

Having tailored intake forms positively impacted the speed and accuracy of my legal review process by often preventing rejections where we had to go back to the business to find out more information before we could even perform the legal review. It was very helpful in capturing all of the necessary information upfront so that legal could make a determination and perform the review.

When we launched Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Managment (CLM), it was a much-needed contract management system in my past role. We did not have anything prior, so it definitely was a tool solving a big problem for us in terms of contract intake, negotiation, management, as well as a centralized repository. We used Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Managment (CLM) as our source of truth for audit purposes, which had a huge impact on us and in being compliant.

The audit response times definitely saw some significant improvement, as we were able to grant access to some of our auditors to access the system to search for the documents directly. We knew that we had built a really good repository with all of the metadata available in the fields that we had set up, so we did a lot of the pre-work upfront, which definitely caused a huge payoff in the end.

Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Managment (CLM) is very difficult to set rules and to follow based on contract type, as the mapping and the level of tech and coding that is needed for that requires developer skills. Going through that training is quite cumbersome and lengthy, especially for legal departments that are more focused on contract negotiation and lack some of those skills.

I would rate Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Managment (CLM) a seven on a scale of one to ten.

I have been working in my current field for over twenty years.

Regarding Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Managment (CLM)'s AI capabilities, I found its accuracy and reliability of output only moderately acceptable. I only got to test some of that when we were doing an RFP for a new system, and it fell in the middle from what I remember compared to some of the other CLMs at the time, just based on actual contract generation in terms of templates and use of AI for chats and summary responses, as well as surgical redlining.

My advice to others looking into using Agiloft Contract Lifecycle Managment (CLM) is to ensure during the RFP stages that you factor in the updates and make sure that you are eligible for those and it is included in your package so that you can take full advantage of the software and its new capabilities, especially based on the roadmap. When I stopped using the system in September 2025, there were no AI enhancements, and some of the other CLMs that are on the market definitely have had upgrades, which we had to pay for. Unfortunately, the updates did not come through with our current licensing that we had. Without the use of AI, I felt that the system put us behind in terms of other enterprises that were using a contract management system. I rate this product a seven overall.