Contract analysis: finding the right AI model for legal documents
How to benchmark AI models for extracting key terms from contracts, with a focus on consistency across document complexity.
When a private equity firm acquires a company, the legal team reviews every contract. A mid-market M&A deal might have 2,000-5,000 contracts to review. Traditional review takes 4-6 weeks with 8-10 attorneys, costing $500,000+.
AI-assisted review can reduce that to 4-6 days. But choosing the wrong model means missed risks and potentially failed deals.
This guide explores how to benchmark AI models for contract analysis, with a focus on performance consistency across document complexity.
Example scenario
Sample input
A commercial software license agreement containing:
- Document type: PDF contract
- Length: 15 pages
- Key fields to extract:
- Parties and effective date
- Term and renewal provisions
- Payment terms and pricing
- Liability caps and limitations
- Termination clauses
- Change of control provisions
Sample output
{
"parties": {
"licensor": "TechCorp Solutions Inc.",
"licensee": "Acme Enterprises LLC",
"effective_date": "2024-01-15"
},
"term": {
"initial_period": "3 years",
"renewal": "Auto-renewal for 1-year periods",
"termination_notice": "90 days prior to renewal"
},
"financial": {
"license_fee": 150000,
"payment_terms": "Annual, due within 30 days of invoice",
"price_escalation": "3% annually"
},
"liability": {
"cap": "12 months of fees paid",
"exclusions": ["IP indemnification", "gross negligence", "willful misconduct"],
"consequential_damages": "Excluded except for IP claims"
},
"change_of_control": {
"trigger": "50% ownership change",
"consequence": "Termination right for non-changing party",
"notice_period": "30 days"
}
}
Model comparison
The complexity factor
Contract complexity varies dramatically. A simple NDA is different from a 50-page acquisition agreement with exhibits. Model performance should be tested across complexity levels:
GPT-4o shows the best consistency—only 8.4% accuracy drop from simple to complex contracts, versus 11-13% for smaller models.
For legal work, this consistency matters more than peak performance. You need to trust the model on your most complex documents.
Clause-level accuracy
Different clause types have different extraction difficulty:
Complex clauses like change of control and IP assignment need more careful review, regardless of model choice.
M&A due diligence results
What can AI-assisted contract review deliver?
The reduction in missed issues is particularly valuable. AI catches patterns that human reviewers miss when fatigued from reading thousands of pages.
Key insights for legal document processing
1. Consistency across complexity levels is critical
A model that performs well on simple documents but degrades on complex ones creates risk. Test specifically for complexity variance.
2. High-risk clauses need human review
Change of control, IP assignment, and indemnification clauses should always have human oversight, regardless of model confidence.
3. Benchmark with your actual contract types
Commercial leases differ from software licenses differ from employment agreements. Test on your actual document mix.
4. Speed enables better outcomes
Faster review means more time for negotiation and issue resolution, not just cost savings.
Try it yourself
LLMCompare helps legal teams evaluate models for contract review. Upload your contracts, define your extraction schema, and get the accuracy data you need for confident deployment.
Because in legal work, missed clauses mean missed risks.