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
Contract lifecycle management and e-signature	Revenue operations	16%	2 of 65	6%	31	accepted challenger

Movement

This is the first edition on this tier, so no move can be computed for Juro 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 Juro across every prompt where it was named for a mid-market B2B company. Twelve models, six prompts per category.

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

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

Direct16 labels7

Paraphrase4 labels1

Comparative16 labels1not counted in share

Budget-constrained8 labels1

Scale-constrained7 labels1

Negative14 labels3not counted in share

First choiceAlternativeMentionNegative65 labels in all, every segment counted; 10 of the 14 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.

“Juro is the strongest overall pick—best user experience, fast deployment, and pricing that scales with contract volume” DeepSeek V4 Flash · CLM · direct prompt · first choice

“Juro is a browser-native contract automation platform built specifically for fast-growing mid-market companies.” Gemini 3.5 Flash · CLM · paraphrase prompt · first choice

“If you want one practical default recommendation, I'd pick Juro for a typical mid-market B2B company” Perplexity Sonar · CLM · direct prompt · first choice

“such as Ironclad, Juro, LinkSquares, or ContractSafe) that prioritize user adoption” Gemini 3.5 Flash · CLM · negative 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.

“Verdict: Approach with caution if you require strong reporting, flexibility, and advanced collaboration features” GLM 4.7 FlashX · CLM · negative prompt · soft negative

“typically starts around $15,000–$30,000/year (Juro, SpotDraft, Ironclad)” Kimi K2 · CLM · budget prompt · soft negative

Named alongside

The products named in the same answers as Juro, over the 65 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.

ProductSame answerTook the first choice insteadHead to head

Ironclad53 of 655Compare →

DocuSign CLM44 of 650Not in the top three

Icertis35 of 652Not in the top three

Agiloft34 of 651Not in the top three

PandaDoc32 of 6511Compare →

LinkSquares29 of 651Not in the top three

Conga CLM27 of 650Not in the top three

Sirion26 of 655Not in the top three

SpotDraft26 of 650Not in the top three

ContractSafe25 of 659Not 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 Juro. 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 65 answers that named Juro and are not a share of its labels.

Domains cited

g2.com6

gartner.com5

juro.comYour site4

summize.com4

whatfix.com4

aline.co3

bindlegal.com3

conga.com3

ironcladapp.com3

learn.g2.com3

Thirty-four of the thirty-eight domain citations in answers naming Juro came from somebody else's page.

Pages cited

gartner.com/reviews/market/contract-life-cycle-management4

juro.com/learn/clm-contract-lifecycle-management-software4

summize.com/clm-hub/best-clm-software4

whatfix.com/blog/clm-software4

aline.co/post/best-contract-lifecycle-management-software3

bindlegal.com/resources/best-software/best-clm-tools3

conga.com/resources/blog/contract-management-tools3

g2.com/categories/contract-lifecycle-management-clm3

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 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.

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 juro.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.