Small business▲+2Since September 2026: 2% → 4%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
4%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 6 → 5 of 53
1 category · RankedJuro
64Judge labels
13First choices
4Negative labels
14 / 14Models named it
1Category
October 2026 Edition. Every number here is derived from the raw labels under vendor table v2026-10-05.2, every buyer segment counted.
Best standing
17% in CLM for mid-market buyers
Rank 3 of 63 in the mid-market standingaccepted challenger
7 of 14 models made it the first choice on the direct prompt; 3% of its 33 labels there were negative.
What the models named instead of Juro →By buyer segmentStrongest at mid-market.
Small business5 of 53
4%22 labels
accepted challenger
Mid-market3 of 63
17%33 labels
accepted challenger
Enterprise9 of 65
4%9 labels
under the label threshold
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 Juro 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 | Since September 2026 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Contract lifecycle management and e-signature | Revenue operations | 17% | 3 of 63 | 3% | 33 | accepted challenger | ▲+2Since September 2026: 16% → 18%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. |
Movement
Since September 2026, Juro held within the floor in its one category: no change cleared 11 points.
Best category · CLM · by segment
Mid-market▲+2Since September 2026: 16% → 18%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
18%from 16% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 9 pointsRank 2 → 3 of 60
Enterprise=heldSince September 2026: 2% → 2%, ±0 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked.
2%from 2% in September 2026
Inside the floor by 11 pointsRank 9 → 13 of 65
All categories · Mid-market
| Category | September 2026 | Now | Change | Reading | Rank |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CLM | 16% | 18% | ▲+2Since September 2026: 16% → 18%, +2 points. Inside the 11-point floor: within noise. Read over the models both editions asked. | Within noise | Rank 2 → 3 of 63 |
Shares here are read over the models both editions asked, so they can differ by a point or two from the standing above, which counts every model in this edition.
The floor is 11 points of share, measured: how far the models move a leader on their own when the same questions are asked twice with nothing changed. A larger change is movement; a smaller one is noise, and both are shown. Movement is read over the twelve models both editions asked; GPT-6 Luna, Muse Glimmer 30B joined this edition and are in the standing but not yet in the comparison. How the floor is measured · The editions
By model
How each model treated Juro across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.ShowHide
By model
How each model treated Juro across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Fourteen models, six prompts per category.
ShowHide| Model | First choice | Alternative | Mention | Negative | Labels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Claude Haiku 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 |
| GPT-5.4 mini | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Gemini 3.5 Flash | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Perplexity Sonar | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Grok 4.20 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Mistral Small | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| DeepSeek V4 Flash | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Llama 4 Maverick | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| Qwen 3.7 Flash | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Kimi K2 | 0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 5 |
| GLM 4.7 FlashX | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| MiniMax M2.5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| GPT-6 Luna | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Muse Glimmer 30B | 0 | 0 | 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
Direct19 labels8
Paraphrase7 labels1
Comparative14 labels1not counted in share
Budget-constrained5 labels2
Scale-constrained6 labels2
Negative13 labels2not counted in share
First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative64 labels in all, every segment counted; 13 of the 16 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.
“the strongest default pick is Juro if you want a modern, easy-to-roll-out CLM with strong mid-market fit” Perplexity Sonar · CLM · direct prompt · first choice
“Choose Juro if you want a balance of powerful legal management and high adoption rates from non-legal users” Qwen 3.7 Flash · CLM · direct prompt · first choice
“I'd recommend starting with Concord or Juro if ease of use is priority” MiniMax M2.5 · CLM · direct prompt · first choice
“Juro - a browser-native CLM platform that is well-suited for mid-market teams” Llama 4 Maverick · CLM · direct prompt · first choice
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.
“Users have reported frustration with "complex filing structures" and issues with "handling attachments."” GLM 4.7 FlashX · CLM · negative prompt · soft negative
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Juro, over the 64 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Juro was named but was not.ShowHide
Named alongside
The products named in the same answers as Juro, over the 64 answers that named it. Took the first choice instead counts the answers where the other product was the first choice and Juro was named but was not.
ShowHideProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head
A head-to-head page exists where both products are among a category's top eight. 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 Juro. A fact about retrieval, not a lever on the model.
Citations exist only for the models that return a source list, five of the fourteen in this edition, so these counts come from 62 of the 64 answers that named Juro and are not a share of its labels.
Domains cited
bindlegal.com35
conga.com35
larksuite.com26
contractsafe.com25
hyperstart.com25
oneflow.com25
juro.comYour site24
sirion.ai24
g2.com23
learn.g2.com22
240 of the 264 domain citations in answers naming Juro came from somebody else's page.
Pages cited
Pages are listed as the models cited them.
Search and answers
juro.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Juro takes 17% of first choices and PandaDoc takes 23%.ShowHide
Search and answers
juro.com is not in Google's top ten for any of the category's searches. In the answers, Juro takes 17% of first choices and PandaDoc takes 23%.
ShowHideIn search
Google, US estimatesPosition for “contract lifecycle management platform”
–
not in the top ten
Position for “best contract lifecycle management platform”
–
not in the top ten
- Searches for its name, Google
- 2,900 a month (“juro”)
- AI search demand for its name, est.
- 536 a month
- Organic visits to its site
- about 44,442 a month
- Searches its site ranks for
- 10,890 · 591 in the top three
- Sites linking to it
- 3,913
- Paid Google search
- 3 searches its ads show for, about 135 clicks and $168 a month (estimate)
In answers
This editionShare of first choices
17%
rank 3 of 63 in CLM
Segment leader
23%
PandaDoc
- First choices
- 13 across its categories
- Named in
- 64 answers
- Its own site cited
- in 62 of the answers that named it
Search figures are US estimates from DataForSEO, read September 28, 2026; AI search demand is its modeled, directional estimate, not a count of queries to any assistant. The answers are this edition's. Two measurements side by side: neither is read as the cause of the other.
What it publishes
ShowHide
What it publishes
ShowHideAddresses on juro.com
1,567
subdomains included
Content
746
counted in the table below
Documentation
0
Product · Integration
0 · 13
| Kind | Pages | Last 90 days | 2025-10 to 2026-09 | Latest | Categories named |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Glossary or explainer | 357 | undated | CLM, CRM | ||
| Blog | 226 | undated | CLM | ||
| Comparison | 86 | undated | CLM, CRM | ||
| Case study | 37 | undated | |||
| Conference or event | 30 | undated | CLM | ||
| Podcast or video | 3 | undated | |||
| Webinar or virtual event | 2 | undated | |||
| Report or ebook | 2 | undated | |||
| Template or tool | 2 | undated | CLM | ||
| News or press | 1 | undated |
Events in person
Upcoming
- May 19, 2027Scaleup GC 2027: Save the dateetc.venues County Hall, London · hosts
Last twelve months
- May 7, 2026Scaleup GC 2026County Hall, London, United Kingdom · hosted
As the event pages on juro.com state them, read September 28, 2026.
How it is countedHide how it is counted
Every page juro.com exposes, subdomains included. Kind is read from the address and title. The last 90 days, the latest date and the twelve months count pages by when they were published, from the site's feeds, a date in the address, or the page's own publication date, read from up to a hundred of its most recently changed pages; a page that says only when it last changed is counted in its kind but not in when, so the recent counts are a floor, and a kind none of whose pages gives a publication date reads undated. An event counts as online when its address or title says so (webinar, on demand, virtual or online summit); a conference, summit, trade show, expo or roadshow that does not say so is counted as a conference or event, which on a vendor's site is mostly in person. Read September 29, 2026.
Follow Juro
An email the morning each edition publishes: where this product moved, where it held, and by how much against the noise floor. One address, confirmed by a click; a stop link in every email.
Already following? Everything you follow, with a stop for each.
The company
Juro is its own company.ShowHide
The company
Juro is its own company.
ShowHideIn its own words
Stated by the vendor, not checked- Positioning
- Intelligent contracting is here.
- For
- legal teams
- Price stated
- Build custom pricing that's right for your business juro.com/pricing
- Starting price
- 0 USD juro.com/pricing
- Free plan or trial
- Try it below - no signup needed. juro.com
- Integrations claimed
- 16 juro.com/pricing · 9000 juro.com/integrations pages disagree
- Certifications
- SOC 2 Type 2 certifiedSOC2 Type II attestation
- Customers named
- LunoGoldinDeliverooTalentfulCOOP CareersFunnelPaddleTelmar
- Not stated on the pages read
- Hosting
What Juro's own pages state, read September 28, 2026: juro.com, juro.com/pricing, juro.com/trust, juro.com/case-studies, juro.com/integrations. A claimed page can correct any of 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 Juro'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 Juro, applied by version and listed in the change log; and a one-line description supplied by the vendor and marked as such.
What a new claim receivesHide what a new claim receives
A new claim receives the current edition's vendor brief for Juro by email, built from the raw record of the edition. It shows:
- where Juro is named, by buyer and by framing, and which cells hold its first choices;
- the claims the models make when they name it, ranked, with the strongest and the weakest quoted;
- its vocabulary against the segment leader's, and the pages the models cited;
- who was chosen in the answers that did not name Juro, and every reason the record gives;
- a battlecard for each top rival: the head-to-head split, why they win, and the reservation quoted against them;
- one page of published figures cleared to show a buyer.
Badges
Wins only: a badge exists where Juro is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.ShowHide
Badges
Wins only: a badge exists where Juro is ranked in a category's top three this edition. Three sizes, one file each, light and dark; the code is under each.
ShowHideJuro is among the products AI models recommend first in Contract lifecycle management and e-signature this edition. Each badge says so in the buyer's words, names the edition, and links to the standing. The next edition issues a new badge; this one stays true as a record of October 2026.
Wide · 320 × 104 Website, beside other badges
Square · 240 × 240 LinkedIn, slides
Compact · 200 × 56 Email signature, footer
Badges read on light and dark pages. Alt text carries the claim, the category, the edition and the index, so it stays a citation where the image does not load.