How AI Search Is Recommending Contract Management Software: Monthly Trends

Executive Summary

DocuSign is the clear category leader in contract management software recommendations, with 56.0% valid recommendation coverage in September 2026. That places DocuSign 8.7 points ahead of PandaDoc at 47.3%, with Ironclad in third at 37.3%. The leadership structure that held in July largely reasserted itself after an August compression that flattened the entire field.

The largest upward mover this month was DocuSign, which rose 42.8 points from 13.2% in August to 56.0% in September. PandaDoc rose 33.6 points from 13.7% to 47.3%, and Ironclad rose 30.9 points from 6.4% to 37.3%. Every tracked brand recorded a significant gain versus the prior month, reversing the uniform declines seen in August. Compared with the July baseline, however, three brands remain significant decliners: Agiloft is down 9.2 points, Icertis is down 9.8 points, and LinkSquares is down 6.0 points.

The category has effectively returned to its July shape for the top brands. DocuSign at 56.0% sits within 0.4 points of its July level of 56.4%, and PandaDoc at 47.3% is within 0.3 points of its July 47.6%. The August dip appears as a single-month compression rather than a lasting repositioning, though the mid-tier brands have not fully recovered their July coverage levels.

Each monthly run begins with 800 prompt-surface observations (547 unique questions) in September 2026, compared with 800 prompt-surface observations (463 unique questions) in July 2026. All prompts in both months mentioned a tracked brand or competitor. In September, 712 prompts were relevant and 88 were filtered out as irrelevant, leaving 482 qualified benchmark observations; in July, 742 were relevant and 58 were irrelevant, leaving 468 qualified observations.

Key Findings

Benchmark Context

The report separates the raw collection universe from the qualified analysis set. Brand-level recommendation percentages are calculated within the qualified benchmark set.

Qualified surface breadth returned to six families in September after narrowing to five in August. ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Google AI Mode, Google AI Overviews, and Perplexity all produced qualified observations this month.

Benchmark-Level Metrics

The benchmark context in September closely resembles July rather than August. Recommendation-shaped answer share at 41.7% sits near the July level of 42.9%, and the valid recommendation shortlist share of 60.4%, while down 7.1 points from July's 67.5%, is well above August's 15.7%. August now reads as an outlier month within the three-month series.

AI Recommendation Trend

The category returned to a familiar two-brand leadership structure, with DocuSign and PandaDoc reasserting their July positions

Valid recommendation coverage measures the share of qualified AI responses in which a brand appears as a named option. September's pattern marks a return to the July hierarchy, with DocuSign and PandaDoc leading and a meaningful gap opening to the rest of the field.

The stable classifications for DocuSign, PandaDoc, Ironclad, Conga, ContractSafe, ContractWorks, and Juro reflect movements that do not exceed normal month-to-month variation against the July baseline. Three brands, Agiloft, Icertis, and LinkSquares, did record significant declines from July to September. No brand exceeded normal variation in an upward direction against baseline.

What Changed This Month

DocuSign

DocuSign rose 42.8 points from 13.2% valid recommendation coverage in August to 56.0% in September. Its July baseline was 56.4%, meaning the brand's September level is within 0.4 points of where it started the quarter. DocuSign recorded 270 valid recommendations out of 482 qualified observations.

Raw mention presence edged up to 91.9% in September from 91.5% in July, essentially unchanged across the quarter. Top-three placement rose to 38.0% from 35.3% at baseline, and rank-one recommendations rose to 16.8% from 16.2%.

DocuSign's presence and its recommendation coverage both returned to July levels. August's sharp drop in raw mention presence, from 91.5% to 23.2%, did not persist. DocuSign remains the most-mentioned brand and the most-recommended brand in the category.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which AI surfaces resumed producing DocuSign recommendations in September, and do the types of prompts answered with vendor shortlists match the July pattern?

PandaDoc

PandaDoc rose 33.6 points from 13.7% coverage in August to 47.3% in September, recovering nearly all of the August decline. At 47.3%, the brand sits 0.3 points below its July level of 47.6%, with 228 valid recommendations out of 482 qualified observations.

Raw mention presence reached 64.7% in September, close to the 66.2% recorded in July. Top-three placement at 23.9% is near July's 24.6%, but rank-one recommendations at 4.8% remain below the 6.2% July level.

PandaDoc holds second place in coverage but continues to lag on rank-one recommendations when it is named. Its average recommended rank of 2.96 in September is behind DocuSign's 2.12 and Ironclad's 1.74.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which competitors take the top recommendation slot when PandaDoc appears in a shortlist, and across which prompt categories does that pattern hold?

Ironclad

Ironclad rose 30.9 points from 6.4% coverage in August to 37.3% in September. The brand remains 5.9 points below its July baseline of 43.2%, a movement the benchmark classifies as within normal variation. Ironclad recorded 180 valid recommendations out of 482 qualified observations.

Rank-one recommendations stand at 18.1% in September, the highest in the category, though down from 23.1% in July. Top-three placement at 27.0% is down 8.7 points from the 35.7% July level, a significant decline. Ironclad's average recommended rank of 1.74 means that when it is recommended, it tends to appear at or near the top of the list.

Ironclad holds the strongest rank-one position in the category even while its overall coverage trails DocuSign and PandaDoc by wide margins. The brand converts its recommendations into top placement more consistently than either leader.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which prompt types still yield Ironclad as the top recommendation, and where has the brand lost top-three placement since July?

Icertis

Icertis recorded the largest baseline-to-current decline among the significant decliners, falling 9.8 points from 29.5% coverage in July to 19.7% in September. The brand rose 14.6 points from August's 5.1%, but that recovery was not enough to return to July levels. Icertis recorded 95 valid recommendations out of 482 qualified observations.

Top-three placement at 9.5% in September is down 5.5 points from July's 15.0%, and rank-one recommendations at 3.1% are down 3.1 points from 6.2%, both significant declines. Raw mention presence at 38.6% is within normal range of the 40.6% July level.

Icertis shows a pattern of presence holding relatively steady while recommendation strength declines. The brand is still mentioned in a substantial share of responses but is being named as a top recommendation less often than it was in July.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Which competitor is taking the top-three recommendation slots that Icertis held in July, and on which prompt categories is that shift concentrated?

Agiloft and LinkSquares

Agiloft fell 9.2 points from 25.0% coverage in July to 15.8% in September, with 76 valid recommendations out of 482 qualified observations. LinkSquares fell 6.0 points from 20.9% to 14.9%, with 72 valid recommendations. Both brands rose sharply from August but remain below their July baselines.

Agiloft's top-three rate at 3.1% is down 3.1 points from July's 6.2%, a significant decline. LinkSquares' top-three rate at 2.7% is down 3.1 points from 5.8%, also significant. Both brands maintain raw mention presence within normal range of July levels, but their recommendation strength has not fully recovered.

The gap between being mentioned and being recommended widened for both Agiloft and LinkSquares across the three-month series.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Are the lost top-three recommendations for Agiloft and LinkSquares concentrated in specific prompt categories, and which brands appear in their place?

Conga, ContractSafe, and the Mid-Tier

Conga rose 12.3 points from 3.5% coverage in August to 15.8% in September, landing 0.4 points above its July baseline of 15.4% with 76 valid recommendations. ContractSafe rose 13.6 points from 2.2% to 15.8%, but remains 2.8 points below its 18.6% July level with 76 valid recommendations. Juro rose 10.4 points from 3.5% to 13.9%, still 2.8 points below its 16.7% July baseline with 67 valid recommendations.

Conga, Agiloft, and ContractSafe all sit at 15.8% coverage in September, forming a three-way tie for fifth place. This mid-tier clustering marks a change from July, when Agiloft at 25.0% stood clearly above Conga at 15.4% and ContractSafe at 18.6%.

The convergence reflects Agiloft's decline more than gains from Conga or ContractSafe. The gap between Agiloft and Conga narrowed from 9.6 points in July to zero in September, driven by Agiloft's lower coverage rather than movement from Conga or ContractSafe.

Highest-priority diagnostic: Does the mid-tier convergence reflect a durable change in how AI systems rank these brands, or is it specific to the September prompt mix?

Buyer-Intent Interpretation

The qualified observations in September fell entirely into the Brand Recommendation cluster, as they did in July and August. The comparison and pricing clusters recorded zero qualified observations in all three months, meaning the public benchmark collected no qualified data on cost discussions or direct vendor comparisons during this period. Price sensitivity, value positioning, and head-to-head competitive outcomes remain unaddressed by the qualified data, even though the raw response-type distribution in September included 26 pricing analyses and 60 comparison analyses that did not survive qualification.

Brand Opportunity Summary

The benchmark identifies where attention is warranted; a company-level analysis is needed to explain why.

Evidence Behind the Benchmark

The aggregate metrics are built from prompt-level observations (query, surface, recommendation outcome, rank, sentiment, and citations where exposed). Company-level analysis can go deeper into prompt, competitor, surface, and evidence patterns. Source presence is not automatically treated as proof of causation.

Interpretation Notes

• August compression context: the qualified set fell to 453 observations in August with only 36 recommendation-shaped answers, then returned to 482 observations and 201 recommendation-shaped answers in September. Monthly movements should be read against this three-month pattern rather than treated as isolated shifts.
• Significant decliners: Agiloft, Icertis, and LinkSquares recorded baseline-to-current declines that exceed normal month-to-month variation. These are the only brands whose September positions remain materially below July levels.
• Small-count caution: ContractWorks holds 26 valid recommendations in September; coverage percentages for this brand carry more uncertainty than for brands with larger counts.
• Directional analysis: month-over-month movement identifies changes worth investigating. It does not by itself establish the cause of those changes.

About This Benchmark

This report is part of the CiteWorks Studio AI Industry Market Discovery research program.

• AI Industry Market Discovery Methodology
• AI Industry Market Discovery Metrics
• AI Industry Market Discovery Standards

Next Step

The Public Benchmark Shows Where a Brand Is Winning or Losing. A Company-Level Audit Shows Why.

The aggregate percentages in this report raise questions that the public benchmark cannot answer alone. Which high-intent prompts are still producing recommendations for a given brand, and which are now returning answers that name a different vendor? When a brand loses a recommendation, which competitor takes its place? What attributes do AI systems associate with each option, and which external sources shape those associations?

A company-specific AI visibility audit maps those prompt, surface, competitor, ranking, sentiment, and evidence-source patterns into a prioritized visibility strategy. It moves from what the benchmark shows to why it shows it, and what to do about it.

Request an AI visibility audit