Does DocuSign CLM work for scaling businesses?
Electronic signature giant DocuSign bought SpringCM in 2018 and rebranded it as DocuSign CLM, to plug the gaps in its eSignature workflow and offer contract lifecycle management as an additional paid product for its customers.
DocuSign CLM has plenty of users. But does DocuSign CLM's clunky UI and lack of flexibility make it unfit for modern businesses?
This page explores the features, limitations and pricing of DocuSign CLM in comparison to Juro's AI contract collaboration platform.
DocuSign CLM limitations
DocuSign CLM is a widely recognized solution, largely because DocuSign is the household name for electronic signatures. But many of the legacy issues experienced by SpringCM users persist with DocuSign CLM, despite the acquisition. Let's run through a few of these now.
1. Inflexible template editor
DocuSign CLM's inflexible template editor makes the product unsuitable for businesses that need to create, customize and amend templates and workflows quickly and easily.
We want more flexibility with the merge fields, specifically using ‘if-then-else’ logic to construct our templates more easily - Verified DocuSign CLM user, G2
Instead, DocuSign CLM is better suited to larger companies with templates and workflows that are set in stone. This is because customizing templates and workflows is so complex in DocuSign CLM that their support team usually need to action these changes, which can take time.
This is distinct from Juro where these workflows are intuitive, flexible and easy to self-serve on. Juro users can create and update templates and workflows themselves in seconds - with no need to request external support.
2. Clunky and dated UI
Another common complaint about DocuSign CLM is that the product's user interface is clunky and unintuitive, which can make the tool difficult to adopt.
This is a significant problem for businesses that want to roll their contract management software out across the business and empower commercial teams to self-serve on contract creation.
The interface is dated and inconsistent. Icons are the opposite of intuitive, the sync application is buggy and error-laden - Verified DocuSign CLM user, G2
It also means that legal teams stick to the status quo and continue to use manual processes to manage their contracts. To truly drive adoption and build efficient contract workflows, you need a tool that's intuitive, seamless and easy to use.
Independent reviews on Capterra suggest that DocuSign CLM doesn't fit this description, with a score of just 4.3 out of 5 for ease of use. This is considerably lower than Juro's score of 4.8 for ease of use.
3. Lengthy and expensive implementations
DocuSign CLM is also renowned for having lengthy and expensive implementations, likely due to the complexity of the tool and the fact that it was designed to serve enteprise customers.
DocuSign CLM's implementation period tends to be between 6 - 12 months long, requiring significant technical expertise on both sides before users can actually get to creating and signing contracts. This means it takes a long time for businesses using DocuSign CLM to gain value from the tool.
Since the cost of the implementation reflects this complexity, meaning buyers are often surprised by the up-front cost involved in a DocuSign CLM deployment.
The implementation partner that we were required to work with was a nightmare. It took a year longer than promised to "launch" and then when it was done it still didn't work - Verified DocuSign CLM user, G2
Juro, by comparison, offers 30-day implementation periods and leads the contract management category for fastest implementation and ease of support, according to independent reviews on G2. This makes Juro the preferred option for businesses that want to get to value quickly.
Let's compare DocuSign CLM to Juro's collaborative, flexible platform in more detail now.
Powerful legal AI
Juro's legal AI Assistant enables users to automate contract drafting. Contract owners can prompt the AI to draft full contracts or individual clauses in seconds, based on the information provided in their contract playbook and guardrails.
Juro's legal AI can also be used to automate the contract review and analysis process. This can be used to identify risks, summarize key clauses, and detect deviations from standard accepted terms.
Best-in-class user interface
Unlike DocuSign CLM, Juro was designed with ease of use and simplicity at its core, making it intuitive and user-friendly not just for legal teams, but for the colleagues they enable. Sales teams, HR teams, procurement teams, finance teams and more can self-serve on contracts from Juro's beautiful UI using a natural language Q&A flow.
This focus on user experience makes it easier for legal teams to get buy-in and to ensure adoption.
I love the user-friendly interface which accommodates easy collaboration with its users and external parties - Verified Juro user, G2 review
Collaborate on contracts in real time
Juro's contract platform enables teams to get to revenue faster by streamlining collaboration between legal and business teams.
Juro users can collaborate, comment and redline contracts in real time, all in one unified workspace. This removes the friction many businesses experience jumping between different files and tools to get contracts agreed.
Juro's flexible browser-native editor was built with collaboration in mind, giving teams the tools they need to create, review, negotiate, approve, sign and store contracts in one place.
Juro is the first CLM I've encountered that has truly been adopted (and enjoyed) by various company departments/stakeholders - Verified Juro user, G2 review
Flexible and data-rich contract workflows
Juro's flexible editor was custom-built for contract generation and collaboration. Juro users can create contracts in seconds from templates in Juro, from integrated platforms, or just by using Juro's drag and drop feature to upload them.
These documents are also created as structured data, enabling you to instantly query your contract data, run real-time dynamic reports, and improve contract visibility right across your business. Your contracts can be collaborated on, tracked and reported on in real-time, enabling your team to move quickly and capture revenue faster.
We set out to find a tool that checked both our legal and GTM team's requirements. After fairly extensive market research, we found Juro checked all the boxes - Verified Juro user, G2 review
Implementation that won't break the bank
Signing with a vendor should be like signing any other contract: a celebratory moment that signals the start of a new relationship. But eye-watering implementation fees can really spoil the party.
Juro was built for self-serve, so after initial training, it's easy to set up your own templates - which is why Juro's implementation fees are small, transparent, and communicated early on.
It's our goal to remove any obstacles to getting you to value, without any nasty surprises along the way. We want to make you successful and do so as quickly as possible.
DocuSign CLM pricing
DocuSign CLM - formerly SpringCM - was one of the earliest contract lifecycle management solutions to gain widespread adoption. Unfortunately, its user experience and features no longer lead the market, and the difficulty and cost of implementation can make its pricing unattractive when compared to modern contract automation platforms.
While DocuSign's eSignature solution is an affordable option for businesses, the enterprise contract management add-on is far more expensive - particularly since their plans are designed to serve larger, listed companies.
If inflexible and expensive pricing is a concern, you could consider Juro's pricing plans. Juro offers flexible plans to suit any business, with bespoke pricing for large deployments. Head over to our pricing page to pick the plan that's right for you.
DocuSign CLM reviews
Read independent DocuSign CLM reviews
DocuSign CLM is rated 4.1 out of 5 on G2 and 4.4 out of 5 on Capterra, making it one of the lowest-rated contract management solutions on the market. This is significantly lower than Juro's rating, which is 4.8 on Capterra and G2.
The following are from verified independent reviews of DocuSign CLM on G2 and Capterra:
I feel many other services could top the features offered by DocuSign CLM - and likely for a much more reasonable fee - Verified DocuSign CLM user, G2 review
"When I am explaining DocuSign CLM to people I am constantly saying 'but' - you can click here to do this BUT it doesn't do x, you have to click over here to do x but then it doesn't do y - Verified DocuSign CLM user, G2 review
The initial setup was a nightmare. It was confusing and took nearly a year while we paid for the service but could not use it - Verified DocuSign CLM user, G2 review
Read independent Juro reviews
When assessing the two solutions, reviewers found Juro easier to use, set up, and administer. Reviewers also preferred doing business with Juro overall. In fact, Juro beats DocuSign CLM across every criteria on G2 and Capterra. In particular:
- Reviewers felt that Juro meets the needs of their business better than DocuSign CLM.
- When comparing quality of ongoing product support, reviewers felt that Juro is the preferred option.
- For feature updates and roadmaps, our reviewers preferred the direction of Juro over DocuSign CLM.
Our users say:
Juro provides cutting edge technology that dramatically improves processes and drives value for our business - Verified Juro user, G2 review
We've created a workflow that is scalable, quicker, automated and allows other teams to self-serve their contracts. For a small legal team this is essential and has saved us so much time - Verified Juro user, G2 review
If you're looking for a simple to use, but powerful piece of contract management software that will have a tangible business impact, Juro is worth evaluating - Verified Juro user, G2 review
To find out more about how Juro compares to DocuSign CLM, fill in the form below to book a personalized demo.