Does Ironclad work for scaling businesses?
Ironclad is a great product built around Microsoft Word. But do Ironclad's multi-tool workflows create unncessary friction for parties, and would an all-in-one platform make your contract process more efficient?
This page explores the features, limitations and pricing of Ironclad in comparison to Juro’s all-in-one contract collaboration platform.
Ironclad often works with enterprise companies, but it's less popular among scaling, mid-market teams given the cost of the platform and its lack of flexibility, among other things. Let's run through a few limitations of Ironclad that businesses like yours should consider before investing.
1. Requires you to jump between different tools
Ironclad relies on a Word-based editor to draft contracts, and an integration with a separate eSigning tool to get them over the line. This is distinct from Juro which has this native functionality and enables teams to collaborate on contracts from start to finish in one unified workspace.
The main problem experienced by Ironclad users is that they have to move contracts in and out of Microsoft Word to make simple changes. This is because Ironclad acts more as a middleware for Word and eSignature solutions, so different parts of the contract workflow happen in different places.
This friction particularly clear from independent reviews of Ironclad on G2 where users explain that Ironclad's dependence on Microsoft Word can make simple contract edits painful and cumbersome:
For something as simple as correcting a typo, you have to download the template, correct it in Word, and re-upload. It feels unnecessarily cumbersome - Verified Ironclad user, G2
By contrast, Juro users often praise how easy it is to create, edit and format contracts within the flexible platform. In fact, many users find the contract creation and editing experience to be significantly better in Juro than it is in Ironclad:
Juro have done a cracking job at making it really easy to create contracts and make edits to those contracts afterwards. I'm always impressed at how easy it is to make changes and adjust formatting - something Ironclad sucked at - Verified Juro user, G2
2. Expensive compared to other solutions
Ironclad's pricing is considerably more expensive than other contract management systems like Juro.
In Ironclad, every user requires a paid seat. This license-based pricing can quickly make Ironclad expensive for scaling businesses and organisations that want to enable teams across the business to self-serve on contract management. By contrast, Juro's platform fee accomodates an unlimited number of users and workflows, making it much more flexible and affordable for growing businesses.
It's also important to note that Ironclad's onboarding is fully self-serve, meaning you'll need a lot of internal resources dedicated to making your team successful in the platform. Ironclad does offer supported onboarding to reduce this burden, but it comes at a considerable, extra cost.
3. Limited contract tracking functionality
Ironclad does offer contract storage, but independent reviews of the tool often describe its post-signature contract management features as limited. This is likely because DOCX files aren’t built as structured data, meaning they're harder to search through, track and query.
The search capabilities are really limited. You can only search by the title of the workflow. You cannot, for example, search by PO# or SKU#, which is extremely annoying - Verified Ironclad user, G2
This is a significant drawback for businesses that rely on contract metadata to inform business decisions and improve their contract process. It also means that organisations usign Ironclad might lack visibility into their contracts.
This is distinct from Juro's flexible and data-rich contract tool which offers real-time contract reporting and analytics. Juro users can gain instant visibility into their contract data as they're fully-searchable from day one.
Let's find out more about how Ironclad compares to Juro's all-in-one contract platform.
Streamlined contract collaboration
Juro's contract management platform streamlines collaboration between legal and commercial teams by enabling teams to collaborate, comment and redline their contracts in real-time - all in one unified workspace.
Juro users can initiate contracts, review, negotiate, approve, sign and store them without switching tools. This reduces friction for internal teams and counterparties, making the contract process faster and more efficient.
This is distinct from Ironclad which relies on Word and separate eSigning solutions to agree contracts in full. If you want to eliminate bottlenecks and bring all of your contracts into one collaborative workspace, Juro is a better fit.
Flexible contract editor and workflows
Juro's browser-native contract editor enables teams to create contracts in seconds with flexible contract templates and customizable workflows.
This makes Juro a great solution for organisations that want to enable teams to self-serve on contracts. Juro enables contract owners to set rules around who can change what in a contract, and customize approval workflows. This empowers them to safely automate routine contract admin and focus on higher-value tasks.
Instant visibility into contracts
Juro also offers businesses instant visibility into their contract data since contracts created in Juro are built as structured data. This means that teams can query their contracts in seconds, run real-time, dynamic reports and even track contracts at a granular level.
They can see where a contract is in its lifecycle at any time, as well as having a birdseye view of key contract metadata. This enables teams to access actionable insights into their contracts with no manual admin required.
As we mentioned earlier, Ironclad is one of the more expensive CLM solutions on the market, likely because its a more heavyweight solution and designed for enterprise-level companies.
It's also more expensive because Ironclad uses a user license-based model, and because supported onboarding is charged separately (for a large fee). In fact, Ironclad's onboarding fee alone can be higher than the annual cost of Juro's basic plan.
Juro's pricing plans are far more flexible. This is because Juro's plans include unlimited users and unlimited workflows, making the platform more affordable for scaling businesses. To find out more about Juro's plans, check the pricing page.
Read independent Ironclad reviews
Ironclad is rated on Capterra with a score of 4.2 out of 5, while Juro is rated significantly higher, with a score of 4.8 out of 5 on Capterra. Here's what independent Ironclad reviewers say about the tool:
Some of the limitations of the repository make for more manual work - Verified Ironclad user, G2
Non-legal background users have hard time understanding the process. These process and system is very foreign to them and it doesn't resemble any other software that they use - Verified Ironclad user, G2
Read independent Juro reviews
Juro outperforms Ironclad across every criteria in G2, but the most notable differences include that Juro is rated 4.8 out of 5 for ease of use, while Ironclad is rated just 4.2 out of 5.
Juro also far exceeds Ironclad when it comes to customer support, with a perfect score of 5 out of 5, while Ironclad only scores 4.4 out of 5 for customer support.
Below are some reviews shared by Juro users:
It takes the sales team four clicks to generate and approve a contract in Juro - Callum Hamlett, Senior Rev Ops Analyst, Paddle
The time I spend negotiating terms has been reduced by 75% thanks to Juro - Karolina Plaskaty, People team, Curve
Juro allows us to track everything, so contract negotiations, notifications, comms with the counterparty, and so on, is all captured in one place - Victoria Sörving, Chief Legal Officer, Funnel
To find out more about how Juro compares to Ironclad, fill in the form below to book a personalized demo.