Compare / GC AI
Sandstone vs GC AI: An Assistant Layer or the System Legal Runs On?
GC AI is an AI platform for in-house counsel — a web app, a Word add-in for review and redlining, playbooks, and connectors into around twenty business apps. Sandstone is the system the work runs through: structured intake, deterministic workflows, permissions mapped across integrations, and a record of every request from arrival to resolution.
Sandstone vs GC AI
| Capability | Sandstone |  GC AI |
|---|---|---|
| Primary focus | AI-native operating system for in-house legal work | AI platform and assistant for in-house counsel |
| Shape of the product | The system requests are captured in, worked through, and recorded | Chat, a Word add-in, playbooks, and connectors into existing apps |
| Intake | Structured intake from Slack, email, and business systems, with each request becoming a tracked item | Requests reach the assistant through chat or the Word add-in |
| How automation is defined | You build workflows step by step, with approval gates set at each one | Skills with chaining, and per-action approval on connector actions |
| Permissions across systems | Permissions mapped across every connected integration, so rules hold consistently wherever a document came from | Per-user account connections, with admin controls over which connectors are enabled |
| Redlining and drafting | Playbook-driven, attorney-controlled | Word add-in that redlines, comments, and applies company playbooks |
| Repository and system of record | Serves as system of record, with contracts connected to matters, counterparties, and obligations | Assistant layer, commonly paired with a CLM |
| Approvals and workflows | Multi-step approvals and conditional workflows, including drafting triggered from Salesforce | Skill chaining, plus an API for calling GC AI from other systems |
| 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 | Per-user chat and document editing |
| 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 | Per-user connector actions |
| Best fit for | Teams that want intake, execution, and system of record in one platform | Generalist in-house lawyers wanting fast answers across a wide contract mix |
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
GC AI is where a lawyer goes to get help with a piece of work. Sandstone is where the work lives — captured on arrival, routed, worked through defined steps, and recorded. If your team is getting good answers but still can't say how many requests came in last month or where they stalled, that's the gap.
Yes — requests, contracts, counterparties, and obligations live in one place, which is what makes the reporting possible. Assistant-layer products generally aren't built for that; GC AI says itself that larger departments typically pair it with a CLM.
Sandstone maps permissions across every connected integration, so the rules hold consistently across a request that touches three systems with three different access models — rather than being resolved separately per connector or per user. Ask any vendor to show you that rather than describe it.
Sandstone can go live off the work your team already does, without a configuration project first — or we can build alongside you if you want it shaped to a specific process. A seat-based assistant is still quicker to switch on, because there's less to stand up. The two are solving different problems, so scope which one you have before comparing timelines.
