Conga vs Agiloft: CLM Compared (2026)

The short answer Conga and Agiloft are both established contract lifecycle management (CLM) platforms, but they were born from different worlds. Conga grew up in the Salesforce ecosystem around documents, quotes and the revenue process, so its CLM sits naturally alongside sales and revenue operations. Agiloft grew up as a no code, highly configurable platform, so its CLM can be shaped to almost any process without heavy custom development. If your contracts are tightly bound to sales and your company runs on Salesforce, Conga is a natural fit. If your contracting process is unusual or spans legal, procurement and operations and you want to model it exactly, Agiloft is a natural fit. ## What Conga is and who it suits Conga is a broad revenue and document platform. Its heritage is document generation (long known through Conga Composer) and configure price quote (CPQ), and its CLM rounds out a suite aimed at the full quote to cash and revenue lifecycle. Conga has deep ties to Salesforce and is a common choice where the CRM is the centre of gravity and contracts flow directly out of opportunities and quotes. Teams choose Conga when sales contracts, order forms and quotes dominate their volume, when they want document generation and CPQ and CLM from one vendor, and when keeping everything close to Salesforce matters for adoption and reporting. Its strength is making the sell side contract process fast and consistent for revenue teams. Conga tends to suit revenue focused organisations, especially Salesforce centric ones, that want contracts handled as part of a wider quote to cash motion rather than as a standalone legal system. ## What Agiloft is and who it suits Agiloft is a CLM known above all for configurability. Its no code platform lets administrators model custom data, workflows, approval rules and automations without writing code, which means a process that does not fit an out of the box template can still be built cleanly. It is frequently recognised by analysts as a Leader in the CLM category and is used across legal, procurement and sales operations, including in regulated and public sector settings. Teams choose Agiloft when their contracting process has genuine complexity or peculiarities, when they want to manage buy side and sell side contracts in one flexible system, and when they have, or can access, an administrator comfortable configuring the platform. The strength is that the tool bends to your process rather than forcing your process to the tool. Agiloft tends to suit organisations with complex or cross functional contracting needs that value deep customisation and are willing to invest a little in configuration to get an exact fit. ## Head to head on what matters Origin and centre of gravity. Conga centres on the revenue process and the Salesforce ecosystem. Agiloft centres on a flexible, no code engine that is application agnostic. This shapes everything else. Configurability. Agiloft's defining strength is how far you can tailor data models and workflows without code. Conga is configurable too, but its sweet spot is the revenue and document generation flow rather than arbitrary process modelling. Document generation and CPQ. Conga has long standing strength here, which matters if you generate high volumes of quotes, order forms and sales paper. Agiloft handles documents but is not primarily a CPQ tool. Buy side and sell side. Agiloft is commonly used for both procurement and sales contracts in one system. Conga leans sell side given its revenue roots, though it manages other contract types too. Integrations. Conga integrates tightly with Salesforce. Agiloft integrates broadly and is not tied to one CRM. Map your must have integrations before deciding. Implementation and admin. Agiloft rewards having an administrator who enjoys configuration. Conga implementations often align with an existing Salesforce practice. Both are enterprise projects, not weekend setups. Pricing. Both are quote based and depend on users, modules and scope. Request written quotes against the same requirements to compare fairly. ## Which should you choose Anchor the choice to where your contracts come from. If most of your contract volume is sales paper flowing out of Salesforce, and you want quotes, documents and CLM from one revenue minded vendor, Conga is the stronger candidate. If your process is complex, spans procurement and legal as well as sales, and you want to model it precisely in a no code platform, Agiloft is the stronger candidate. In both cases, define your real workflow first, then run a scripted demonstration where each vendor configures a slice of your actual process. The platform that matches your process with the least friction, and that your admins and users can sustain, is the right one. ## How to run a fair comparison The names on a shortlist matter less than how you test them. Both tools here are capable, so the decision should rest on your own contracts and your own process, not on a feature grid or a polished demo. Settle these questions before you sign. First, locate your real bottleneck. Is your pain before signature, in slow drafting and stalled negotiation, or after signature, in missed renewals and untracked obligations? The tool that is strongest exactly where you hurt is usually the right one, even if it loses on points elsewhere. Second, test AI accuracy on your own agreements. Vendor demos use contracts chosen to look good. Load a representative sample of your real agreements and check extraction and risk flags on the clauses you actually care about, because accuracy varies widely by contract type and jurisdiction. Third, judge adoption, not just capability. A tool the business avoids never pays back its cost. Put each option in front of the non lawyers who will use it, and see which one they take to without training. Fourth, confirm the integrations you depend on are native rather than fragile workarounds, and that they cover your CRM, e signature and storage. Fifth, compare true cost over three years, including implementation, configuration and support, not just the first year licence. Ask each vendor for a written quote against the same defined scope. Finally, be honest about configuration effort and who will own it. A platform that fits your process only after months of setup may cost more than it saves. Answer these honestly and the right choice usually becomes clear without a feature by feature scorecard. ## Bringing the work into one place Behind the choice of platform is a simpler truth. Drafting a contract, reviewing it for risk, negotiating the redlines, tracking obligations and renewals, and keeping versions straight are one connected body of work on the same document. It is easier when that work lives in one place, shaped to how your company contracts, rather than scattered across systems that each own one slice. That single workspace idea is what Adira is built around: draft, understand, edit, track and govern a contract in one place, with per clause risk visible and a built in activity history. Adira is India first today, with jurisdiction depth expanding, so an organisation with heavy non India contracting should weigh where its agreements actually sit. The lesson to carry from this comparison is the direction: a contract is easier to trust when its whole life lives together. This article is general information, not legal advice.