Before choosing contract management software, an insurance team should decide which agreements belong in the system. Reinsurance treaties, broker agreements, and third-party administrator contracts can involve different reviewers, approvals, and obligations.
This guide compares seven platforms for regulated teams, from insurance-focused contract tools to broader governance and CLM suites. DiliTrust ranks first for organizations seeking contract workflows alongside wider governance processes.
Map the agreements before choosing software
| Agreement group | Examples | What to check in a CLM platform |
| Reinsurance and distribution | Treaties, broker and producer agreements | Version history, approval routes, obligations, and renewal dates |
| Outsourced operations | Vendor and third-party administrator contracts | Contract owner, service commitments, risk review, and follow-up dates |
| Policy and claims work | Policy documents and claims-related agreements | Whether the CLM supports these workflows and connects with policy administration or claims systems |
1. DiliTrust: Contract workflows within a governance suite
At No. 1, DiliTrust gives in-house legal teams contract workflows alongside broader governance functions. Its Contract Management module supports:
- The contract lifecycle: creation, negotiation, approval, execution, and renewal.
- Workflow controls: configurable processes, granular access controls, and API integrations.
- Connected governance work: board, entity, and matter management within the wider suite.
While DiliTrust offers comprehensive CLM and governance capabilities, insurers should confirm how the platform can be configured for specialized workflows such as reinsurance treaty management and policy administration.
2. Sirion: Insurance workflows from submissions to treaties
Sirion’s insurance offering covers several workflow areas:
- Underwriting and policyholder teams: contract management for underwriting, policyholder, and claims agreements.
- Operations teams: digitize submissions, enforce service-level controls, and validate invoices.
- Reinsurers: tools to support treaty compliance.
This insurance focus makes Sirion one of the more sector-specific options on the shortlist.
3. Icertis: A case in third-party oversight
The Standard, an insurance provider, adopted Icertis Contract Intelligence to manage third-party contracts across a network of thousands of vendors.
| Case element | What the Standard reported |
| Need | Better visibility into vendor agreements, risk-based terms, and contracts inherited through acquisitions |
| Icertis deployment | A central system for third-party contracts, connected with risk-management tools and contract rules |
| Reported results | 25% fewer repetitive transactional contracts and automated compliance tracking tied to expiration and termination events |
| Savings benchmark | The procurement director reported savings in the range of five to six times the team’s employee cost. |
The case makes Icertis especially relevant to insurers managing large supplier portfolios and third-party risk. The results are company-reported figures from Icertis’s customer story.
4. Conga CLM: Reinsurance treaties connected to Salesforce
AXA needed contract workflows that could stay aligned with its Salesforce treaty-placement process. Conga CLM integrated with Salesforce and supported a clause library used during complex renewals. AXA’s case study says the team worked with more than 7,000 clauses in each renewal period.
Reported result: AXA signed 20% more contracts in the first month of the year than in the same month of the previous year.
The case also describes 27 new merge fields used to reduce data gaps between systems. This makes Conga relevant to insurers managing treaty workflows in Salesforce, especially when renewal cycles involve extensive clause libraries. Conga reports the results in its AXA customer story.
5. DocuSign CLM: LV’s compliance-driven rollout
The LV case shows how a regulated insurer used DocuSign CLM to bring more control to its commercial agreements:
- Starting point: LV lacked a central contract database and had limited visibility into commercial activity.
- Migration: The team collected legacy agreements and metadata, then uploaded thousands of contracts to build a searchable database.
- Workflow changes: Automated approval routines helped route agreements consistently. The project also aimed to align documents with the UK Prudential Regulation Authority’s supervisory statements SS1/21 and SS2/21 on operational resilience and third-party risk.
LV’s experience makes DocuSign relevant to insurers facing contract migration and approval-control challenges. Teams operating in other jurisdictions should map their own regulatory requirements before using this case as a model.
6. Agiloft: A financial-services control test
Agiloft’s Financial Services solution focuses on oversight across agreements. It highlights tracking obligations, amendments, renewals, and key terms, with contract data available for reporting. The offering is positioned for financial institutions broadly; the materials reviewed do not establish insurer-specific treaty management.
In an evaluation workshop, check whether Agiloft can:
- Route a vendor agreement to the right approvers after a risk reassessment.
- Assign an owner and follow-up date when an obligation changes.
- Produce a report showing upcoming renewals and amended terms.
Agiloft may be worth comparing when configurable controls matter, and the team can validate its insurance workflows during implementation.
7. Ironclad: Making legal review part of the workflow
At NEXT Insurance, Ironclad helped standardize contract review after the company found that some agreements were being signed without legal review. The legal operations team introduced a rule requiring contracts to pass through the system before Legal reviewed them, then created playbooks for different contract types, including vendor and agency agreements.
NEXT Insurance’s reported AI result: The legal operations lead said the contract review agent cut the time to draft a termination letter in half. Ironclad’s case study also reports 100% adoption of the agent among legal users within one week.
What the vendor evidence supports
| Platform | Insurance connection shown in the available evidence |
| DiliTrust | Governance-connected CLM; confirm treaty-specific workflows |
| Sirion | Insurance-focused workflows for underwriting, claims, policyholder contracts, and reinsurance treaties |
| Icertis | The Standard case: third-party supplier contracts and risk-based oversight |
| Conga CLM | AXA case: reinsurance treaties, Salesforce integration, and clause-heavy renewals |
| Docusign CLM | LV case: contract migration, approvals, and a UK regulatory project |
| Agiloft | Financial-services controls for obligations, amendments, renewals, and reporting |
| Ironclad | NEXT Insurance case: legal review workflows and AI-assisted contract work |
The table reflects vendor-published product information and customer stories. It distinguishes direct insurance workflow evidence from broader financial services or governance capabilities. The list is an editorial ranking based on product scope and published insurance use cases, not a third-party rating. Customer results come from vendor-published case studies.
Define the operating rules before migration
A CLM platform needs clear rules for the contracts it stores and the people who maintain them. Set these decisions before moving a large archive into the system:
| Decision | Define before rollout |
| Contract records | Which agreement types to include, how to classify them, and who owns each record |
| Key metadata | Which fields teams must capture, such as counterparty, effective date, renewal date, and obligation owner |
| Workflow changes | Who can edit templates, approval routes, and escalation rules when business processes change |
| Access and retention | Which roles can view or export each contract type, and how records are archived |
| AI-assisted review | Which terms the system may extract or flag, and who checks the result against the source document |
These rules affect day-to-day work. If two departments classify the same agreement differently, reports and renewal alerts may be unreliable. If nobody owns template updates, users may keep starting from outdated language. If teams don’t check AI-extracted dates or obligations, they may rely on incorrect contract data.
Assign responsibilities across Legal, Compliance, Procurement, and Operations. Legal may maintain approved clauses; Compliance may define review controls; Procurement may own supplier records; Operations may monitor assigned obligations. The roles will vary by insurer, but every contract type needs a named owner and a clear path for exceptions.
During migration, start with a representative set of agreements and confirm that the fields, access rules, and workflows work as intended. Then expand the import using the same agreed structure.
Move from shortlist to a controlled pilot
Build the pilot around actual agreement workflows, with examples from the teams that will use the system. The pilot can also help teams identify which repeatable steps are suitable for contract management automation.
- Routine path: Route a vendor or TPA agreement through intake, legal and compliance approval, signature, and renewal tracking.
- Treaty path: Use a reinsurance agreement with an amendment or nonstandard clause. Follow its versions, approvals, obligations, and related records.
- Control check: Ask an approver to locate the accepted terms, identify who owns the next action, and retrieve the approval history.
- Integration check: Test how the platform exchanges information with the tools used for vendor risk, document storage, policy administration, or claims.
- Migration check: Import sample signed contracts and compare extracted dates and obligations with the source documents.
Include Legal, Compliance, Procurement, and the system owner in the review. Record which requirements work through standard configuration, which need custom setup, and where employees would still need to move information manually. That gives the implementation team a concrete scope to estimate. For U.S. insurers, the review should also account for state oversight; the NAIC supports state regulators with standards, best practices, and coordination.
