# Which is better for a company scaling from Ad HOC contract management to something that actually has workflow and approval tracking, Docusign CLM or Ironclad?

<p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">I'm comparing Docusign CLM vs Ironclad for a company moving from ad hoc contract management to something with real workflow and approval tracking. Both are established names in the <a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/categories/contract-lifecycle-management-clm">Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM)</a> category, but they come at the problem from different angles, so it's worth looking at where each fits.</p><ul>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/docusign-clm/reviews"><strong>Docusign CLM</strong></a> extends a signature-first foundation into full lifecycle management, with a central repository, version control, clause library, and configurable approval workflows, plus tight CRM integration, so it's a natural step for teams already living in that signing ecosystem. The trade-offs users cite are a learning curve for new users and an interface that can feel dated.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/ironclad/reviews"><strong>Ironclad</strong></a> is workflow-first, built around configurable intake, approval, and collaboration so the contracting process itself becomes structured and trackable, and teams reach for it to end the "who has this contract" scramble. Its repository search rewards disciplined tagging, and the configurable workflows take some upfront setup to get right.</li>
</ul><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true"></p><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">The rough read from user experiences: Docusign CLM leans on repository, signature, and workflow within an established ecosystem, while Ironclad leans on flexible, process-driven workflow design. For teams that have made this jump, did approval tracking and intake matter more, or repository and signature? And how heavy was the setup on the option you chose before it actually ran smoothly?</p>

##### Post Metadata
- Posted at: about 1 month ago
- Author title: Marketing
- Net upvotes: 1


## Comments
### Comment 1

&lt;p&gt;I’d lean toward Ironclad for this stage because the biggest gap in ad hoc contracting is usually intake and approval visibility, not e-signature. Docusign CLM makes more sense to me when the company is already deeply tied to the Docusign ecosystem.&lt;/p&gt;

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: 27 days ago
- Author title: Marketer





## Related discussions
- [How well does Trello scale into a larger team?](https://www.g2.com/discussions/1-how-well-does-trello-scale-into-a-larger-team)
  - Posted at: over 13 years ago
  - Comments: 6
- [Can we please add a new section](https://www.g2.com/discussions/2-can-we-please-add-a-new-section)
  - Posted at: about 13 years ago
  - Comments: 0
- [Quantifiable benefits from implementing your CRM](https://www.g2.com/discussions/quantifiable-benefits-from-implementing-your-crm)
  - Posted at: about 13 years ago
  - Comments: 4