Compare
Luminance analyses contracts against your standards. Lexnus turns your approved policy into deterministic rules.
Luminance analyses contract language against your standards and can identify risk and suggest changes. Lexnus evaluates extracted contract values against deterministic rules in a policy you have published.
The difference in one line
Why the starting point decides everything
Reading contracts at scale is a hard problem, and AI is genuinely good at it. Extracting the cap, finding the missing indemnity, spotting the clause that does not look like the others: that is real work being done well.
The difference is how the standard is applied. Luminance uses AI to analyse contract language against configured standards. Lexnus uses AI to read the contract, then evaluates the extracted values against versioned, deterministic policy rules.
Lexnus moves that knowledge into the product. Your standard is a published, versioned playbook: aggregate liability must not exceed 1.5x annual contract value. The AI still reads the contract and extracts the value. That part is the same hard problem. What is different is what happens next. The rule evaluates the value. The answer is pass or fail, not a score or a flag for review.
That is why business users can be trusted with it. You cannot hand a risk report to someone in sales and expect a good decision. You can hand them a verdict, because the judgement already happened when a lawyer published the rule.
Side by side
| contract analysis | Lexnus | |
|---|---|---|
| Where the product starts | The document | The published policy |
| What comes back | AI analysis, risk flags and suggested changes | Pass or fail on every rule |
| Where your standard lives | Configured standards and playbooks | In a versioned playbook, in the product |
| Consistency across reviewers | Depends who reviews it | Same playbook, same verdict, every time |
| Who can act on the output | Legal and authorised business users | Anyone, because the judgement is already encoded |
| What the audit trail proves | What the analysis found | Which policy version judged it, and what it said |
This page describes an architectural difference, not a feature scorecard. Products change; for what any vendor ships today, read their own documentation. What does not change is where each one starts, and that is what this page is about.
When Luminance is the right answer
Your problem is genuinely comprehension at volume: due diligence across a large back catalogue, or answering open questions about contracts you did not write. It is not about holding a line on new paper.
We would rather tell you that than sell you the wrong layer. Every CLM started with the document. Lexnus started with the policy. If the policy is not what is failing you, this is not the product to buy.
Questions
Is Lexnus not also an analysis tool?
It analyses, but that is the input rather than the output. The analysis extracts the Smart Fields your rules reference; the playbook then evaluates them and returns a verdict. The distinction is whether the product ends with a finding or with a decision.
Where does the AI stop and the policy start?
The model reads and extracts. The playbook judges. That boundary is deliberate: a probabilistic reader is the right tool for messy contract language, and the wrong tool for deciding whether your company accepts a term.
It also means the model layer is replaceable without your compliance changing. The encoded policy is the asset.
Can we use both?
Yes. Analysis at volume over a historic back catalogue and enforcement on new paper are different jobs. Lexnus governs what leaves; a review tool helps you understand what already exists.
See it on your own contract.
Upload one contract you have already signed. Lexnus drafts a playbook from it, and you can watch your own standard get enforced. Free plan, no card.