Drafting & review
Draftwise
AI contract review and drafting inside the firm's document management system.
Last observed 42 days ago. Records are treated as awaiting re-check after ninety days.
Only some data-handling statements were found. The checked sources did not contain all three of a confidentiality, training, and data-location statement. That is a gap in what the vendor publishes, not a finding about the product. Ask the vendor directly, or weigh it however your firm sees fit.
Editorial assessment
Contract review inside your document system, with a blunt no-training statement.
This section is the CounselAtlas editorial desk’s own reading of the dated facts below. It is not a vendor statement, not a rating, and not a recommendation. Every product fact it rests on is recorded with a source in the record.
What it is
AI contract review and drafting that works inside the firm's existing document management system. The vendor states that customer data never trains public models.
What it is not
It is not a standalone contract lifecycle platform and it is not a research tool. It sits inside the document system you already use.
Who it tends to fit
- Transactional and corporate practices that review contracts at volume
- Firms that keep documents in a DMS and want help in place
- Firms that weight a no-training statement heavily
Who it tends not to fit
- Litigation practices looking for research or case assessment
- Firms without a document management system
- Firms looking for end-to-end contract lifecycle management
What to ask before you buy
- Which document management systems does it connect to?
- What is the price, and how does it scale with document volume?
- Does the no-training statement cover every model the product uses?
- How does it handle documents it cannot read?
Limits in the record
- The vendor does not publish a price in the checked source.
- It works inside a document system, so it depends on the firm already having one.
How it sits in Drafting & review
Inside drafting and review, this is the DMS-native option. Legora is the workspace alternative and Ironclad is the lifecycle-platform alternative. The difference is whether you want help inside your existing document system or a new system of record.
Reading the vendor’s wording
The vendor's statement is blunt: your data never trains public models, and it says this is because the capability is not in their code. A short, absolute statement is easy to read but carries less detail than a longer published policy.
How to evaluate it in a trial
- Confirm which document management systems it connects to.
- Ask for the price and how it scales with document volume.
- Ask whether the no-training statement covers every model the product uses.
- Test how it handles a document it cannot read.
What adopting it costs
It works inside the firm's existing document management system, so there is little to migrate and the lock-in is low. The dependency is on the DMS connection rather than on a new repository.
Closest alternative
Legora — The workspace alternative. This one works inside your existing document system; that one is a standalone workspace.
The record
Everything below is a dated observation from the vendor’s own published material. Each line links to the page it came from so you can confirm it yourself.
What we verified
- Vendor
- Draftwise. Observed September 21, 2026 · Vendor page ↗
- Price path
- Contact sales: No public price was located in the checked vendor source. Observed September 21, 2026 · Source ↗
- What it does
- Transactional, Corporate. Draftwise presents contract review and drafting inside existing document systems. Observed September 21, 2026 · Source ↗
- Firm-size scope
- Not stated. Observed September 21, 2026 · Checked page ↗
- Connections
- Not stated. Observed September 21, 2026 · Checked page ↗
- Data location
- Not stated. Observed September 21, 2026 · Source ↗