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 are its clunky user experience and reliance on offline files suitable for the modern business?
This page explores the features, limitations and pricing of DocuSign CLM in comparison to Juro's all-in-one contract automation platform.
DocuSign CLM limitations
DocuSign CLM offers the reassurance of the preeminent eSignature provider's brand, alongside the promise of a richer feature set for contract lifecycle management.
But many of the legacy issues with SpringCM persist with DocuSign CLM - modern contract automation platforms have more intuitive user interfaces, better digital workflows, and search and analytics capabilities made possible by a data layer that DocuSign CLM simply doesn't have.
DocuSign CLM users also often report lengthy implementations - accompanied by significant implementation fees - that can delay or defeat any return on investment. Key pain points that users typically encounter with DocuSign CLM are:
- Old-fashioned user interface: business teams used to modern cloud platforms like Salesforce and Slack can find DocuSign CLM difficult to use, with the different parts of the contract lifecycle not fitting together seamlessly
- Template limitations: DocuSign CLM's document formats rely on Word and PDF, meaning template editing is not a truly digital experience benefitting from structured data and rich media
- Expensive implementation: SpringCM was built for enterprises, and buyers are often surprised by the up-front cost involved in a DocuSign CLM deployment
- Lengthy delays in time-to-value: as an enterprise-focused solution, DocuSign CLM's implementation can be slow, requiring significant technical expertise on both sides before users can actually get to creating and signing contracts
Juro benefits
🎨 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 business 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.
🌐 Browser-native, custom-built contract editor
Juro's unique editor was custom-built for contracts. Its JSON-based, browser-native format means that documents are created as structured data.
No more costly AI contract review to find out what's in your contracts - they're searchable from day one. What's more, the Juro editor's truly digital capabilities allow for rich media and imagery, making your contracts and order forms attractive to signatories.
Finally, the data-first contract format makes it easy to integrate with core systems like Salesforce, Slack, Workday, Greenhouse, Gmail and Zapier. This is what modern contract management is supposed to look like.
💲 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.
It's our goal to remove any obstacles to getting you to value, without any nasty surprises along the way.
⏩ Get to value in weeks - not months
Implementing DocuSign CLM can be so complex that accredited implementation consultants exist to help you onboard.
At Juro, we think a six-month implementation is nothing to shout about - that's why we aim to get you creating contracts within days, not months.
Juro's customer success and legal engineering teams deliver an average time-to-value of 21 days, meaning you can take advantage of self-serve automation, collaborative workflows and a data-rich repository to free yourself up from routine contracts and get on with your day.
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.
If pricing is a concern, then instead of DocuSign CLM's opaque, front-loaded, enterprise-level pricing, you could consider Juro's flexible 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 on G2 with ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (4.0/5), with 16 1-3 star reviews; and on Capterra with ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (4.3/5), with at least nine 1-3 star reviews. This is significantly lower than Juro's rating, which is 4.8 out of 5 on both platforms.
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"
"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"
"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"
"The roll-out of the software has taken years instead of months"
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.
Juro is rated on G2 with ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (4.8/5); and on Capterra with ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ (4.8/5). Juro leads the contract management category, according to reviewers, for Ease of admin (9.8/10) and Quality of support (9.7/10).
- 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:
"Thanks to Juro, teams within our business can send out clear, well-drafted, beautifully designed commercial agreements that can be signed quickly"
"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"
"Easy to learn, intuitive user interface, anyone can use it without training. The Q&A function is amazing and let me as a legal person focus on contracts which actually require my expertise in drafting and negotiating"
"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"
