GTM AI Index
Index Vendors › ContractZen · September 2026 Edition
1 category · Named, not ranked

ContractZen

15Judge labels
2First choices
2Negative labels
10 of 12Models named it
1Category
September 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-09-16.3, every buyer segment counted.
Standing
7 labels, too few to rank
A product needs 10 labels in a category before a share or quadrant is stated. ContractZen was named 7 times in CLM, where PandaDoc led with 25%. The labels and the evidence are below, counted exactly.
By buyer segmentRead the same way at every buyer size.
In clm · each standing computed within its segment · bars are 0 to 100 · the accent bar is the product's own best reading

Standing by category

Every category where a model named ContractZen 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.
CategoryFunctionShareRankNegative rateLabelsQuadrant
Contract lifecycle management and e-signatureRevenue operations2%13 of 6514%7under 10 labels · led by PandaDoc at 25%

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for ContractZen 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 ContractZen across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.
ModelFirst choiceAlternativeMentionNegativeLabels
Claude Haiku 4.501001
GPT-5.4 mini00000
Gemini 3.5 Flash00000
Perplexity Sonar00011
Grok 4.1 Fast01001
Mistral Small01001
DeepSeek V4 Flash01001
Llama 4 Maverick00000
Qwen 3.7 Flash01001
Kimi K200000
GLM 4.7 FlashX10001
MiniMax M2.500000

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
Direct0 labelsNone
Paraphrase0 labelsNone
Comparative2 labelsNone
Budget-constrained10 labels2
Scale-constrained1 labelNone
Negative2 labelsNone
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative15 labels in all, every segment counted; 2 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.

“For absolute lowest cost: Choose ContractZen at $9.50/user/month” GLM 4.7 FlashX · CLM · budget prompt · first choice
“Light CLM (repository-focused, e-sign via partners); 4.7/5 Capterra. Good for <5 users.” Grok 4.1 Fast · CLM · budget prompt · alternative
“Most Affordable Per-User ... Cheapest per-user pricing, simple setup” Mistral Small · CLM · budget prompt · alternative
“Frequently cited as one of the cheapest true CLMs” Qwen 3.7 Flash · CLM · budget 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.

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

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as ContractZen, over the 15 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and ContractZen was named but was not.
ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
PandaDoc15 of 153Not in the top three
Concord12 of 153Not in the top three
ContractSafe12 of 153Not in the top three
Zoho Contracts8 of 155Not in the top three
Ironclad8 of 150Not in the top three
DocuSign CLM7 of 150Not in the top three
Bind5 of 151Not in the top three
Agiloft5 of 150Not in the top three
ContractWorks3 of 150Not in the top three
Contractbook3 of 150Not 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 ContractZen. 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 2 of the 15 answers that named ContractZen and are not a share of its labels.

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 ContractZen'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 ContractZen, 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.agency 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.

Subscribe to the pack