Gatekeeper vs Juro

Gatekeeper or Juro: Which should I choose?

Choose Gatekeeper if the vendor behind the contract is also your responsibility: it screens third parties, keeps the diligence evidence with the contract, and shows what you actually paid rather than what you agreed to pay. Choose Juro if you only need contract lifecycle management, because its browser-native editor, AI drafting and in-browser redlining are built for exactly that.

Contract lifecycle management, as a category, covers what the document says: create it, negotiate it, sign it, store it, and track its dates. It does not cover whether the company you signed with is safe to do business with, or whether the promises inside are being kept after signature. Those are a different discipline, and they are obligations in their own right.

So the deciding question is how much of the job is yours.

What does contract lifecycle management alone leave uncovered?

Three things fall to legal that contract lifecycle management alone does not cover: who the counterparty is, whether the contract obligations were met, and what you actually paid the vendor versus what you committed to pay.

Who the counterparty is

A signed agreement does not tell you whether the entity behind it sits on a sanctions list, has adverse media against it, is in financial distress, or has changed its bank details since onboarding. Those checks are a different job from drafting, and they are what stops money from reaching a party you would not have approved. Gatekeeper runs sanctions and adverse media screening, with security and credit ratings through SecurityScorecard and Creditsafe, and its specialist vendor performance agents validate payment and spend details. Juro does not currently offer screening.

Proving the obligation was met

Under GDPR Article 28, a controller must use only processors that provide sufficient guarantees, and evidence it. DORA, ESG reporting, and modern slavery legislation follow the same pattern: the clause satisfies the drafting requirement, and the evidence satisfies the regulator. A contract-only platform stores the clause. It does not collect the evidence or chase the vendor who has not sent it. As the only unified vendor and contract lifecycle management platform, Gatekeeper does both and maintains a record of contract obligations alongside the agreement itself.

What you actually paid

Committed value sits in the contract. Real spend sits in accounts payable, and that gap is where overspend and missed contract renewals show up. Gatekeeper's spend module works at the invoice line level against the contract record, so forecast and actual sit side by side. Renewal dates on that same record drive the alerts before a notice period passes.

What is Gatekeeper and what is Juro?

Gatekeeper is the only unified vendor and contract lifecycle management solution for teams who need contracting, third-party compliance, and spend in one place. Juro is a purpose-built contract lifecycle management platform built around a browser-native editor.

In Gatekeeper, the contract management platform sits alongside a vendor master record, risk assessment and monitoring, and a spend module working with accounts payable data. All three share a single data model, so a risk finding, a contract clause, and a line of invoiced spend attach to the same vendor record. Gatekeeper Agents

Juro is built around a browser-native editor with AI-assisted drafting and review, for business-wide self-serve contracting where teams raise their own agreements from a CRM.

Gatekeeper and Juro compared, feature by feature

Gatekeeper and Juro overlap on contract drafting, negotiation, and eSignature. They diverge on vendor management, third-party risk, and invoiced spend, which Juro does not offer. Below, we use plain descriptions rather than ticks.

Where a vendor does not publish a capability, we say so, and we omit unverifiable rows.

Where is Juro stronger than Gatekeeper?

Juro is a good contract platform, and on these five points it is the better one for legal teams: the drafting experience, live co-negotiation, implementation speed, business-wide self-serve contracting, and independent review volume.

The drafting experience

Juro has a browser-native editor with AI drafting and in-browser redlining. Gatekeeper doesn't. Contract creation is template-driven; those templates are Word files, and in-browser editing happens via embedded Microsoft Office for the Web rather than a Gatekeeper drafting canvas.

Live co-negotiation

Juro supports live in-browser negotiation with the counterparty, with threaded comments, suggested edits and separate internal and external versions. Its AI agents redline incoming third-party paper against playbooks you control, in Juro or in Word. Gatekeeper's negotiation is Word round-tripping with Track Changes, and Gatekeeper doesn't offer a side-by-side comparison view.

Implementation speed

Juro publishes an average implementation time of 18 days and a target of 30 days or less, and states on the same page that it is currently averaging 21 days. On G2, where the numbers come from reviewers rather than vendors, Juro's average implementation time is 3 months versus Gatekeeper's 4 months (G2 Pricing Insights, captured 17 August 2026; G2 does not disclose the sample size). These should be read alongside who the independent reviews are coming from. Enterprise accounts are 31.7% of Gatekeeper's G2 reviewers and 6.2% of Juro's. A deployment covering vendors, risk and spend across an enterprise estate is a different piece of work from a contract-only mid-market rollout, so the one-month difference reflects what is being implemented as much as how fast it goes.

Business-wide self-serve contracting

Juro is built for teams across the business raising their own agreements from a CRM. That is Juro's core motion, and it's not Gatekeeper's.

Independent review volume

Juro has around 2.7 times Gatekeeper's G2 review volume: 248 against 91. However, the reviewer mix is broken down differently. Juro: 17.4% small business, 76.4% mid-market, 6.2% enterprise; and Gatekeeper: 17.1% small business, 51.2% mid-market, 31.7% enterprise.

Where is Gatekeeper stronger than Juro?

Gatekeeper's advantage starts where the contract stops. Juro does not extend into vendor management, third-party risk, or invoiced spend, so this is a scope difference.

You can prove your diligence

Risk assessments, scoring, due diligence questionnaires, continuous monitoring, and security ratings, mapped to DORA, GDPR Article 28, ESG, and modern slavery obligations. Findings sit on the same vendor record as the contract, so an auditor's question about what you checked and when is already answered in Gatekeeper. 

One record per vendor, not one per document

Gatekeeper has a vendor master record, supplier onboarding, a supplier portal, and balanced scorecards for tracking vendor performance, answering who you do business with, not only what you signed. It stops the same supplier appearing three times under three spellings. Juro's AI can populate risk-related fields from contract text, such as whether a vendor is critical. That is a data point extracted from the document and not an assessed risk position on the third party. Juro's own procurement buyer's guide lists this as a limitation, saying Juro "doesn't offer a full suite of broader procurement functionality".

Invoiced spend, not committed value

Juro has no spend module. Its own content puts actual spend in 'bank statements, expense reports and accounting systems' and scopes Juro to committed spend drawn from contract text.  Gatekeeper works with accounts payable data against the contract record.

The AI is included in the price

Gatekeeper prices on vendor volume and integrations, including Gatekeeper Agents. Juro prices on contract volume and integration complexity. Juro's pricing page asks which of AI Extract, AI Draft, and AI Review you need, but it is unclear whether they're included or an additional cost.

What do G2 and Capterra ratings say, and when were they captured?

Both products hold 4.5 out of 5 on G2. Juro leads on Capterra at 4.8 against Gatekeeper's 4.6. Gatekeeper leads on meeting requirements and ease of use; Juro leads on ease of setup and support. All figures were captured on 14 August 2026.

G2 sub-scores are out of 10; Capterra is out of 5. 

How to choose between Gatekeeper and Juro

Choose Gatekeeper if you also have to evidence diligence, control supplier onboarding, or answer for what a vendor actually costs. Choose Juro if contract throughput is the problem and nobody has to assess the third parties behind those agreements.

Choose Gatekeeper if you are a legal team and the contract is not where your risk ends

You review terms without seeing the counterparty's risk profile, you chase evidence that obligations you drafted are being met, or you write clauses that satisfy a regulator on paper, and nobody monitors afterwards.

Choose Juro if you are a legal team and contract throughput is the problem

High volume, every non-standard redline landing on one desk, revenue pushing for faster turnaround, and no requirement to assess or monitor the third parties behind those agreements. Juro is built for that, and for that job it is the better choice.

Choose Gatekeeper if you are in procurement and onboarding is the problem

Suppliers arrive faster than risk checks can clear them; the same vendor appears under three different names; purchase orders go around the approval route. Gatekeeper puts risk checks inside the onboarding workflow, not alongside it.

Choose Gatekeeper if you are in finance or risk and evidence is the problem

You cannot quickly say what you spend with a given vendor, a notice period slipped, and the renewal cost real money, or your vendor register is a spreadsheet that does not flag anything.

Look at both if legal and procurement are buying together

More common than either team might expect, and they want different things: legal wants contract velocity, procurement wants supplier control and defensible risk checks.

See how Gatekeeper handles third-party risk and vendor management, read our pricing, or book a demo and bring your own contract to it to see Gatekeeper in action.

Frequently asked questions

Is Gatekeeper A contract management or a vendor management platform?

Both, plus spend. Gatekeeper is the only unified platform covering contract lifecycle management, third-party risk and compliance, and spend, on one data model. Contract-only platforms such as Juro cover the first of those three, which is why the two are not straightforwardly comparable.

Does Gatekeeper support SAML single sign-on and SCIM?

Yes. Gatekeeper supports SAML 2.0 single sign-on through a generic connector and named connectors, and SCIM provisioning for Microsoft Entra. These sit on the Enterprise tier and above. Google and Microsoft single sign-on are available below that. All three have published knowledge base articles.

Does Gatekeeper have native eSignature?

Yes. Gatekeeper eSignature is native, included with unlimited licences on current pricing, with multiple signatories, configurable signing order, four capture methods, and a full audit trail. Both Gatekeeper and Juro state their native eSignature is designed to meet the eIDAS advanced electronic signature criteria, and both route to DocuSign for QES. 

Can you draft contracts in Gatekeeper without Microsoft Word?

Partly. Gatekeeper's templates are Word files with merge fields and a conditional clause library, editable in the browser via embedded Microsoft Office for the Web. There is no Gatekeeper drafting canvas. If browser-native drafting without Word is a firm requirement, Juro is the better fit for contracts.

Does Juro do vendor risk management?

No. Juro is contract-centric and does not offer risk assessments, scoring, due diligence questionnaires, continuous monitoring, or security ratings. Juro holds SOC 2 Type 2, but that is its own security posture as your supplier, not a feature that assesses your third parties.

Should a legal team choose Gatekeeper or Juro for contract lifecycle management?

Gatekeeper, if the team that owns the contracts also has to screen the third party and evidence obligations after signature: risk, contracts and spend sit on one record. Juro, if contract lifecycle management is all your team owns, because its browser-native editor, AI drafting and in-browser redlining are built for that.

Which is better for a regulated organisation managing vendor risk?

Gatekeeper. Juro does not offer third-party risk assessment, monitoring, or supplier management, so covering those obligations means running a second platform alongside it. Gatekeeper holds risk, contracts, and spend on one record, which is what an auditor asking for evidence of diligence needs.

How do Gatekeeper and Juro price their platforms?

Both offer unlimited users. Gatekeeper prices on vendor and third-party volume, with integrations and Gatekeeper Agents included. Juro prices on contract volume and integrations, and its pricing page lists AI Extract, AI Draft, and AI Review, but it doesn't list any additional pricing.