Compare / Checkbox
Sandstone vs Checkbox: A Legal Front Door, or the System Behind It?
Checkbox is a legal operations platform built around intake, triage, and no-code workflow automation, with a front door across Slack, Teams, and email and matter management behind it. The two overlap on intake. Sandstone also carries contract execution and system of record, maps permissions across integrations, and builds context that compounds between requests.
Sandstone vs Checkbox
| Capability | Sandstone |  Checkbox |
|---|---|---|
| Primary focus | AI-native operating system for in-house legal work, including contract execution | Legal operations platform for intake, triage, and workflow automation |
| Intake | Structured intake from Slack, email, and business systems, in whatever form requests arrive | Requests captured from email, Slack, Teams, Salesforce, intranets, and web forms |
| Triage | Agents interpret intent and route by expertise and capacity, with context attached | AI-driven categorization with priority assignment and routing |
| How workflows are built | Built step by step, with approval gates at each one | No-code builder with linear, parallel, and trigger-based workflows |
| Business context | Counterparty history, prior decisions, and relationships mapped into a knowledge base that compounds | Matter records and structured request data |
| Contract execution | Drafting, redlining, approvals, and native e-signature in the same system | Integrates with CLM platforms for contract execution |
| Repository and system of record | Serves as system of record, with contracts connected to matters, counterparties, and obligations | Matter workspace with document storage and auditable activity |
| Permissions across systems | Permissions mapped across every connected integration | Platform permissions |
| Internal collaboration | Legal works a request together in the app or the plugins, with comments and drafts staying behind the scenes until you choose otherwise | Shared matter workspace |
| Acting back in source systems | Replies and actions go back to Slack, procurement, and contract systems under a shared team identity, with permissions mapped across those integrations centrally | Channel sync across Slack, Teams, and email |
| Reporting | Cycle time, risk exposure, capacity, and deviation rates | Customizable intake and matter reporting |
| Best fit for | Teams that want intake, execution, and system of record in one platform | Teams that want configurable workflow automation across many request types |
Based on publicly available information as of September 2026. Names and trademarks belong to their respective owners. If anything here is inaccurate or out of date, contact us and we'll update it.
Frequently asked questions
Yes — that's the design. Intake, triage, drafting, approvals, redlining, e-signature, and the repository sit in one system, so a request keeps its context from arrival through to signature. See the CLM answer below for when keeping an existing platform is still the right call.
Very little. Sandstone learns your positions from the contracts and precedent you already have, so most teams are live within a few weeks. Where you want something shaped to a specific process, we'll build the workflow and approval gates with you.
It can, and whether it should depends on where you are. Replacing makes sense when the CLM is functioning mainly as a repository with approvals, adoption outside legal is thin, and you'd rather run one system. Running alongside makes sense when there's deep post-signature obligation management across a large legacy portfolio, when procurement or finance operate inside the CLM too, or when you're mid-term on a multi-year agreement. We'll tell you which one you are on a call, including when the answer is that you should keep what you have.
Who the counterparty is, what was agreed with them before, which relationships and prior decisions bear on this request, and how similar questions were resolved — mapped into a knowledge base that compounds rather than sitting as a closed ticket.
