Index › Revenue operations › CLM › Concord vs GetAccept

Contract lifecycle management and e-signature · September 2026 Edition

Concord vs GetAccept

One of twelve models named Concord first on the direct prompt; zero named GetAccept. Concord was named by ten of the twelve models and GetAccept by seven and Concord carries 19 labels and GetAccept 13, so the shares are not directly comparable.

Concord

accepted challenger

Austin, founded 2014. Named in one category this edition.

GetAccept

accepted challenger

founded 2015. Named in four categories this edition.

First-choice share6%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.

Negative rate0%0%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.

Rank in category#4#7A position in a field of 16; printed, not drawn.

Labels1913A count; the two differ.

The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, Concord reading right to left. Rank and label count are printed, not drawn.Ironclad was named alongside these two in eleven of the twelve direct answers. PandaDoc vs Concord · PandaDoc vs GetAccept · Juro vs Concord

Share is the count of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts over all twelve models, for a mid-market B2B company; rank is within the category; every quote names the model and the prompt it came from. Both figures come from the contract lifecycle management and e-signature page.

By framing

How many of the twelve models made each the first choice, per way of asking, and how many argued against it.

ConcordFirst choices, of twelve modelsGetAccept

Direct10

Paraphrase02

Comparative00

Budget-constrained20

Scale-constrained00

Negative00

Bars are first choices, 0 to 12 each sideModels that argued againstA model can name both, so the two sides of a row do not sum to twelve.

Every model, every framing

The seventy-two answers behind the chart above, one cell each: where Concord and GetAccept stood in it.

Model	Direct	Paraphrase	Comparative	Budget-constrained	Scale-constrained	Negative
Claude Haiku 4.5
GPT-5.4 mini
Gemini 3.5 Flash
Perplexity Sonar
Grok 4.1 Fast
Mistral Small
DeepSeek V4 Flash
Llama 4 Maverick
Qwen 3.7 Flash
Kimi K2
GLM 4.7 FlashX
MiniMax M2.5

Concord

GetAccept

first choice

named as an alternative

argued againstblank: not namedEach cell is one answer, Concord on the left and GetAccept on the right.

The direct prompt

The plain question, one answer per model, grouped by where Concord and GetAccept stood in it.

Concord first, GetAccept not the choice

1 of 12 modelsGetAccept was named in the answer but not as the choice, or not at all.

GLM 4.7 FlashXConcord, Juro alternatives: Agiloft, Ironclad

Neither was the first choice, one was named

3 of 12 modelsThe answer put something else first and named one of the two as an alternative.

Grok 4.1 FastIronclad, Juro alternatives: Concord, DocuSign CLM, LinkSquares, SpotDraft

DeepSeek V4 FlashJuro alternatives: Concord, Conga CLM, DocuSign CLM, Ironclad, PandaDoc, Salesforce Service Cloud, SpotDraft

Kimi K2Juro, SpotDraft alternatives: Bind, Concord, Ironclad, PandaDoc

Neither was named

8 of 12 modelsThe answer made no first choice from these two in this category.

Claude Haiku 4.5Ironclad alternatives: Juro, LinkSquares, SpotDraft

GPT-5.4 miniIronclad alternatives: Conga CLM, DocuSign CLM

Gemini 3.5 FlashIronclad, Juro alternatives: Gatekeeper, LinkSquares, SpotDraft, Stackpack

Perplexity SonarJuro alternatives: Ironclad, LinkSquares, SpotDraft

Mistral SmallLinkSquares alternatives: DealHub, Ironclad, Juro

Llama 4 Maverickno first choice

Qwen 3.7 FlashMalbek alternatives: Conga CLM, Gatekeeper, Ironclad, Zoho Contracts

MiniMax M2.5LinkSquares alternatives: Contractbook, Ironclad

Bold names in an answer are the products the judge labeled a first choice; a model naming several gives each of them that label. The full answer text for every row is in the record.

By buyer segment

The same question asked on behalf of a different buyer. Each standing is computed within its segment and they are never added together. The figures above are the mid-market standing, which is the one the category orders by.

Small business

Concord leads by four points.

Concord#4 of 15

GetAccept#5 of 15

The full small business standing →

Mid-marketThe figures above

Concord leads by two points.

Concord#4 of 16

GetAccept#7 of 16

The full mid-market standing →

Enterprise

Level: the same share of first choices.

Concord#– of 8

GetAccept#– of 8

The full enterprise standing →

What the models said about Concord

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. Three of four in this category shown.

“My top recommendation: Concord for its flat pricing and comprehensive features” Mistral Small · budget prompt · first choice

“Juro or Concord would be the best starting points” GLM 4.7 FlashX · direct prompt · first choice

“I'd usually start with Concord” GPT-5.4 mini · budget prompt · first choice

What the models said about GetAccept

Every negative label with a quote, up to three, then the highest-weighted positives, up to three. One of one in this category shown.

“The best e-signature and contract management tools for mid-sized B2B companies are: 1. GetAccept” Llama 4 Maverick · paraphrase prompt · first choice

Also compared

PandaDoc vs Concord PandaDoc vs GetAccept Juro vs Concord Juro vs GetAccept Ironclad vs Concord Ironclad vs GetAccept Concord vs SpotDraft Concord vs LinkSquares Concord vs ContractWorks SpotDraft vs GetAccept LinkSquares vs GetAccept GetAccept vs ContractWorks All twenty-eight head-to-head pages and the full CLM standing

Comparisons are drawn for the top eight products in each category, each against each. The output is the models' output; nothing here is a recommendation by the index.