Index › Revenue operations › CLM › GetAccept vs ContractWorks

Contract lifecycle management and e-signature · September 2026 Edition

GetAccept vs ContractWorks

Zero of twelve models named GetAccept first on the direct prompt; zero named ContractWorks. GetAccept was named by seven of the twelve models and ContractWorks by eight and GetAccept carries 13 labels and ContractWorks 11, so the shares are not directly comparable.

GetAccept

accepted challenger

founded 2015. Named in four categories this edition.

ContractWorks

accepted challenger

Named in one category this edition.

First-choice share4%4%Of first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts, 0 to 100.

Negative rate0%9%Negative labels as a share of the product's labels, 0 to 100.

Rank in category#7#8A position in a field of 16; printed, not drawn.

Labels1311A count; the two differ.

The two percentage rows are drawn on one 0 to 100 track, GetAccept 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 GetAccept · PandaDoc vs ContractWorks · Juro vs GetAccept

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.

GetAcceptFirst choices, of twelve modelsContractWorks

Direct00

Paraphrase20

Comparative00

Budget-constrained02

Scale-constrained00

Negative001 against ContractWorks

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 GetAccept and ContractWorks 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

GetAccept

ContractWorks

first choice

named as an alternative

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

The direct prompt

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

Neither was named

12 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

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

Mistral SmallLinkSquares alternatives: DealHub, Ironclad, Juro

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

Llama 4 Maverickno first choice

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

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

GLM 4.7 FlashXConcord, Juro alternatives: Agiloft, Ironclad

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

GetAccept leads by four points.

GetAccept#5 of 15

ContractWorks#11 of 15

The full small business standing →

Mid-marketThe figures above

Level: the same share of first choices.

GetAccept#7 of 16

ContractWorks#8 of 16

The full mid-market standing →

Enterprise

Level: the same share of first choices.

GetAccept#– of 8

ContractWorks#– of 8

The full enterprise standing →

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

What the models said about ContractWorks

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

“described as repositories or document tools that do not manage the full lifecycle” Perplexity Sonar · negative prompt · soft negative

“The best contract lifecycle management platform for a company with a limited budget is ContractWorks” Llama 4 Maverick · budget prompt · first choice

“pick ContractWorks for the best balance of affordability and usability” Perplexity Sonar · budget prompt · first choice

“ContractWorks is a budget-friendly option for simple storage needs” Llama 4 Maverick · comparative prompt · alternative

Also compared

PandaDoc vs GetAccept PandaDoc vs ContractWorks Juro vs GetAccept Juro vs ContractWorks Ironclad vs GetAccept Ironclad vs ContractWorks Concord vs GetAccept Concord vs ContractWorks SpotDraft vs GetAccept SpotDraft vs ContractWorks LinkSquares vs GetAccept LinkSquares 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.