Every category where a model named Contractbook for a mid-market B2B company. Share is first choices across the direct, paraphrase, budget and scale prompts; rank is within every product named in that category.

Category	Function	Share	Rank	Negative rate	Labels	Quadrant
Contract lifecycle management and e-signature	Revenue operations	0%	21 of 65	20%	5	under 10 labels · led by PandaDoc at 25%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Contractbook yet. The next is due October 1, 2026. From the next edition this section shows, per buyer segment, whether its share moved by more than the measured noise floor.

By model

How each model treated Contractbook across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

Model	Alternative	Negative	Labels
Claude Haiku 4.5	0	0	0
GPT-5.4 mini	1	0	1
Gemini 3.5 Flash	0	0	0
Perplexity Sonar	2	1	3
Grok 4.1 Fast	0	0	0
Mistral Small	0	0	0
DeepSeek V4 Flash	0	0	0
Llama 4 Maverick	0	0	0
Qwen 3.7 Flash	0	0	0
Kimi K2	0	0	0
GLM 4.7 FlashX	0	0	0
MiniMax M2.5	1	0	1

By framing

Which of the six questions produced the naming. By model says how often; this says asked what. The first-choice count on the right carries the marks of the models that produced it.

FramingLabels by classFirst choices

Direct4 labelsNone

Paraphrase2 labelsNone

Comparative7 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained2 labelsNone

Scale-constrained2 labelsNone

Negative6 labels1not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative23 labels in all, every segment counted; 0 of the 2 first choices count toward share, since the comparative and negative framings do not. The bar is one segment per label class, to scale within the framing.

What the models said for it

Verbatim evidence the judge attached to positive labels.

“Contractbook may be worth a look. It emphasizes SMB-friendly pricing and custom flows/integrations.” GPT-5.4 mini · CLM · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“Contractbook or Concord are better CLM-oriented alternatives for SMB/mid-market teams” Perplexity Sonar · CLM · paraphrase prompt · alternative

“worth considering if you need a genuinely low entry price for small-team storage/templates” Perplexity Sonar · CLM · budget prompt · alternative

“deserves special mention if you're looking for something more budget-friendly” MiniMax M2.5 · CLM · direct prompt · alternative

And against it

Verbatim evidence attached to negative labels. A warning on a product with few labels is a warning; on a product with many, it is one voice among them.

“be cautious if you need a true CLM, because these are described as repositories or document tools” Perplexity Sonar · CLM · negative prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Contractbook, over the 23 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Contractbook was named but was not.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

PandaDoc22 of 238Not in the top three

ContractSafe15 of 236Not in the top three

Concord13 of 232Not in the top three

Ironclad12 of 230Not in the top three

DocuSign CLM11 of 230Not in the top three

ContractWorks8 of 231Not in the top three

Juro8 of 231Not in the top three

Agiloft6 of 230Not in the top three

GetAccept6 of 230Not in the top three

Zoho Contracts6 of 230Not in the top three

A head-to-head page exists where both products are in a category's top three. The other rows are the same fact without a page behind them, so they link to the product instead.

What carried it into the answer

The sites and pages cited by the answers that named Contractbook. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.

Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, four of the twelve in this edition, so these counts come from 9 of the 23 answers that named Contractbook and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

getaccept.com7

ironcladapp.com7

sirion.ai7

bindlegal.com6

oneflow.com5

techfundingnews.com5

worksbuddy.ai5

checkbox.ai4

conga.com4

contractsafe.com4

Fifty-four of the fifty-four domain citations in answers naming Contractbook came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

getaccept.com/blog/best-contract-management-software7

sirion.ai/library/clm-platform/contract-management-software7

bindlegal.com/resources/best-software/best-clm-tools6

ironcladapp.com/journal/contract-management/best-contract-management-tools6

oneflow.com/blog/contract-lifecycle-management-software5

techfundingnews.com/9-best-contract-lifecycle-management-platforms-for-procurement-teams-25

conga.com/resources/blog/contract-management-tools4

worksbuddy.ai/blogs/what-are-the-best-contract-management-lifecycle-software-for-small-bus4

Pages are listed as the models cited them.

Is this your product?

Claim this page

Claiming is free and changes nothing in the data. A claimed page shows a verified contact who is told when each edition publishes and when Contractbook's standing changes by more than the noise floor; the right to propose corrections to the vendor table, meaning names the judge wrote that should or should not read as Contractbook, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.

It does not get any change to labels, shares or verdicts, any preview, or any say over which quotes appear. A verification link goes to your work email; an address at contra.com is approved on the spot, any other address is reviewed by hand.

Your name and company appear on the claimed page, or the company alone if you ask below. A title and a LinkedIn address appear there too if you give them, and are left off if you do not. Your email address is never published.