Compare / Juro
Sandstone vs Juro: Browser-Native Contracting or the Whole Legal Function?
Juro is a browser-native contract platform for in-house teams — draft, negotiate, approve, sign, store, and report without leaving the browser or touching a Word chain. Sandstone works across every request that reaches legal, routed with the business context behind it and resolved in the tools the business already uses.
Sandstone vs Juro
| Capability | Sandstone |  Juro |
|---|---|---|
| Primary focus | AI-native operating system for in-house legal work | All-in-one, browser-native contract management |
| Scope of work covered | Any request that reaches legal, contracts included | The contract lifecycle end to end |
| Where the work happens | Slack, email, and existing business systems | The Juro browser workspace, with integrations into Salesforce, HubSpot, and Slack |
| Intake and triage | Agents interpret intent from free-form requests and route with context attached | Contract workflows with approvals |
| Business context | Counterparty history, prior decisions, and relationships attached to each request | Contract data extracted and structured across the portfolio |
| Redlining and drafting | Playbook-driven, attorney-controlled | Review Agent redlines third-party contracts against configured playbooks |
| Asking questions of your contracts | Ask across matters, counterparties, and history | Operator, a conversational interface over contracts and contract data, with citations |
| E-signature | Native | Native |
| CLM coverage | Replaces a CLM for teams that want intake, execution, and system of record in one platform, and runs alongside one where an existing investment makes that the better call | Full contract lifecycle management |
| Permissions across systems | Permissions mapped across every connected integration | Controls within the Juro platform |
| 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 | Collaboration on contracts in-browser |
| 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 | Integrations with CRM and messaging tools |
| Best fit for | Teams whose problem is the volume and variety of inbound legal work | Startup and mid-market teams that want contracting in one browser workspace |
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
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.
Probably not as a first purchase, and we'd rather say so now. If contracting is genuinely the whole job, start with a contract platform. Sandstone earns its place when the work spans beyond contracting, or when the context between requests is what keeps getting lost.
No. Sandstone works in the tools already in place — Slack, email, Word, and the business systems around them — rather than asking the team to adopt a new workspace. That's the whole design premise.
Yes, with contracts connected to the matters, counterparties, and obligations they belong to rather than sitting in a separate store. See the CLM answer above for when that's the right call and when keeping an existing platform is.
