Frequently Asked Questions

Transactency is a contract negotiation platform built on shared playbooks. Instead of two sides trading blind markups back and forth, both parties work from the same transparent framework. You see what's negotiable, what the common positions are, and where your counterparty stands. It's designed to cut through the redline theater and get deals done faster.

It's $120 per user, per month, and the first 90 days are free, no credit card to start. We keep the math transparent on purpose: no hidden tiers, no seat games, and recipient accounts are free forever. Reviewers or passive users on your account don't take a paid seat either. For most accounts, a full year runs about the cost of a single outside-counsel redline cycle.

Yes... that's what the sandbox is for. Run practice deals with yourself or a colleague, nothing at stake, until you're comfortable with how it works. No risk, no real counterparty required. We'd rather you kick the tires than take our word for it.

Not at all. Transactency isn't about replacing lawyers; it's about streamlining the contract process. If you're using a lawyer to assist you, they can focus on what actually matters. You can grant your attorney varying levels of access: read-only, read/write, or full proxy authority to negotiate on your behalf. We're augmenting legal, not eliminating it.

Almost always... because the other side wins too. The old way is a battle of forms: whose paper, whose redlines, who caught what. Transactency replaces that with neutral ground: one shared playbook where every option is on the table and visible to both sides from the first move. That's not something most counterparties resist. It's trust from the outset, and it's a relief. On top of that, your counterparty never pays (recipient accounts are free, forever), and their side is the lightest-touch part of the platform: they open the shared playbook, see your selections with the other options right next to them, and accept, counter, or reserve for additional discussion. No blind markups, no guessing what changed. Most growing businesses are living the same redline pain you are, so it's not a hard sell. And if someone does resist? You still come out ahead. Our entire contract creation and negotiation process runs you roughly an hour or two of traditional legal time per year, so even without full participation you're WAY ahead of the redline dance, and at a minimum you'll have the template side of your house nailed.

Different layer... and they work together. A CLM lives after signing: storage, obligation tracking, renewals, reporting. Transactency lives in the negotiation, before anyone signs. The clean document you finish with drops right into your CLM. You don't need a negotiation platform because you have a CLM; the honest answer is you want both.

One of the hallmarks of our platform is structural consistency. You won't upload your existing forms, because the power of Transactency comes from both parties working from the same playbook. However, we're confident that with a small upfront investment of your time, our contracts will be as robust (and likely more so) than what you're currently using. That being said, there's an addendum mechanism that allows you to incorporate unique deal terms or make other revisions to our proposed language as you think necessary.

No. Anyone can publish a static template. The ABA has done it for decades, and the document is the deliverable. We templated something different: the playbook itself, the decision tree of what's actually negotiable and what positions exist for each issue. The playbook drives the language, not the other way around. Templates live inside Transactency as saved setups you can reuse, not as the product itself.

No. We provide a platform to help you create and negotiate contracts, but we're not acting as your lawyer and have no opinion on how you should proceed within our system. If you have questions about the content of agreements or the choices you should make, we recommend consulting your own legal counsel.

The platform provides pre-written provisions aligned to the positions you select. This is intentional: it eliminates the syntactic churn (shall vs. will, passive vs. active voice, etc.) that triggers unnecessary redlines. You can always modify language if needed via our addendum feature, but we've found most users prefer the speed and consistency of our approach.

We're starting with commercial agreements (MSAs, service agreements, vendor contracts) that represent the bulk of business-to-business deal friction. We'll be expanding to additional contract types based on user demand. Sign up and help shape what we build next.

Most AI contract tools make redlining faster. We think that's solving the wrong problem... making it easier to run headfirst into a wall twice as fast doesn't help. AI does single-party work: review my contract, draft my clause. Transactency is a multi-party platform that reduces the need for redlines in the first place by putting both sides on the same structured, transparent surface from the start. Different category, not a faster version of the same thing. We laid out the full argument, and why this category outlasts the AI wave, in our Platform Risk Whitepaper.