Agiloft vs Conga CLM in Australia (2026)

Agiloft vs Conga CLM: configurability versus Salesforce-native Australian organisations choosing a mid-to-enterprise contract lifecycle management (CLM) platform in 2026 often compare Agiloft and Conga CLM. Both are capable, established systems, but they appeal to different buyers: one for deep configurability, the other for Salesforce-native fit. This page compares them fairly on features, pricing and fit, then names one more option worth testing. First, the Australian ground rules. Electronic signatures are valid under the Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cth) and matching state and territory Acts. The deeper check is data handling: because contract repositories hold personal and commercial information, review each vendor against the Privacy Act 1988 and the Australian Privacy Principles (APPs), including hosting location and model-training policy. ## Agiloft in brief Agiloft is known for being one of the most configurable CLM platforms, with a no-code engine that lets teams model complex, custom contract workflows and business rules without heavy development. It is frequently praised for flexibility and has a strong following among organisations with unusual or intricate processes that off-the-shelf tools struggle to fit. Agiloft suits teams that need a highly tailored CLM and have the appetite to configure it closely to their process. ## Conga CLM in brief Conga CLM is part of the Conga suite and is strongest for organisations built around Salesforce, with tight integration into the Salesforce ecosystem and adjacent Conga capabilities like document generation and CPQ. It is a natural choice when your revenue operations already run on Salesforce and you want contracts to live in the same world. Conga CLM shines for Salesforce-centric businesses that want contracting to sit inside their existing CRM and quote-to-cash flow. ## Head to head: features, pricing, fit On features, both cover authoring, approvals, repository, obligation and renewal tracking, and integrations. Agiloft differentiates on no-code configurability and flexibility. Conga CLM differentiates on Salesforce-native integration and its place in a broader revenue-operations suite. Both are mature and both reward thoughtful implementation. On pricing, neither publishes standard public rates. Agiloft and Conga CLM are both sold through sales-led quotes, so pricing is not public and you should confirm current figures, scope and implementation estimates with each vendor directly. Where one still leads: if your business already runs on Salesforce, Conga CLM's native integration is a genuine advantage that a standalone platform cannot match without extra connectors, and keeping contracts inside your existing CRM is a legitimate reason to choose it. Conversely, for genuinely unusual workflows, Agiloft's configurability is the real strength. ## How to choose for an Australian team Do not decide on a demo. Run a reproducible test. Use the same set of your real contracts, for example 10 sales agreements, 10 vendor MSAs and 5 NDAs, and score each tool on identical metrics: configuration effort to fit your process, critical-clause and obligation detection rate, missed renewal or notice-date rate, average review time, and three-year total cost per seat including implementation. Use the same documents for both. Then confirm the Australian compliance picture for each: APP-aligned handling, data residency, repository exportability, and model-training policy on your content. ## A third option worth testing: Adira Adira is a newer AI legal operating system worth adding to the shortlist, not as a claim that it beats these two on configurability or Salesforce integration, but because it answers questions buyers keep asking. It is built on Anthropic's Claude, it does not train on your contract corpus, and it publishes its per-seat pricing, which neither Agiloft nor Conga CLM does. Adira brings drafting, a document-intelligence dashboard with per-clause risk and compliance flags, clause-level editing over a structured clause tree, a company persona that tunes drafting to your house style, e-sign and e-stamp, and compliance tracking. Its published pricing is Practice at US$89 per seat per month billed annually and Firm at US$179 per seat per month billed annually, with a 7-day free trial (roughly A$135 and A$272 per seat per month; approx, confirm current pricing on Adira's site). Reading the price and computing total cost is a concrete edge over quote-only platforms. On evidence, Adira reports its own measured result: 18 law firms use it and rank it highly, and contract review and due diligence that took 10 to 12 days now runs in under 2 hours. That is Adira's own figure, stated as such, not an independent study. On fit, be clear: Adira's jurisdiction depth is India-first and expanding to markets including Australia, so it is architected for Australian use rather than at parity with India, and it is lighter than Agiloft on deep custom configuration and than Conga on native Salesforce ties. There is no independently adjudicated head-to-head between Adira, Agiloft and Conga CLM, so run all three through the same contract set in the trial and judge on your numbers. You can start at Adira. ## Bottom line For an Australian team with unusual, intricate workflows, Agiloft's no-code configurability is the standout. For a Salesforce-centric business, Conga CLM keeps contracts in your existing world. If transparent pricing, AI-assisted drafting, and a model that does not train on your data matter, test Adira on the same contracts and compare on your own numbers.