AI contract comparison for vendor drafts

When contract comparison matters

Contract comparison is most useful when you have two documents that should be close but are not identical: a supplier draft against your template, a renewal against the original agreement, or a negotiated version against the last approved copy.

The risk is not only visible redlines. Suppliers often change payment timing, liability caps, renewal language, security obligations, assignment rights, or termination windows in ways that look small but change the commercial position.

What Arthur & Co compares

Arthur & Co treats contract comparison as the Contract comparison workflow. The user uploads the baseline and the new draft, then the workflow prepares a reviewable output:

• changed clauses that affect the deal;
• missing clauses or protections that were present in the baseline;
• deviations around payment, liability, confidentiality, security, termination, or renewal that need review;
• plain-language notes that explain why the change matters;
• follow-up questions for procurement, operations, or legal review.

Use the right page for the job

If you are researching the approach, keep reading this guide. If you already have two documents, go to the contract comparison automation page or start the Contract comparison workflow.

For a single contract with no baseline, use the free contract analyser instead.

Typical use cases

• Vendor onboarding where the supplier returns edited terms.
• SaaS renewals where price, renewal, liability, or data clauses changed.
• Procurement contracts that need comparison against fallback terms.
• Policy or contract versions where the team needs to know what changed.

Conclusion

AI contract comparison should support judgement, not remove it. It should make the differences easier to see, explain why they matter, and help the team decide what needs human review.