Skip to main content
AIpricly

Legal contract analysis

Compare Claude Sonnet and GPT-5 for contract clause extraction and risk flagging. From $120/mo for 10K contracts. Hallucination rates compared.

Your usage

Default assumptions
Monthly requests10,000
Avg input tokens4000
Avg output tokens800

When to use this scenario

Contract analysis extracts key clauses — liability caps, termination rights, auto-renewal provisions, IP assignment terms — and flags provisions that deviate from standard templates or carry unusual risk. At law firms and legal operations teams handling thousands of contracts per month, the economics are compelling: a junior associate reviewing a 40-page NDA costs $400–800 in billable time; a model review costs under $0.10.

Claude Sonnet is preferred for legal work because it has lower hallucination rates on specific clause identification and produces more precisely scoped uncertainty signals ("this clause is ambiguous, recommend human review") rather than confident wrong answers. At $3/million input tokens, a 4K-token contract costs $0.012 to process — 10,000 contracts/month runs $120 in input.

Important scope limitation: AI output is a first-pass triage, not legal advice. The pipeline should produce structured output (clause type, text excerpt, risk flag, confidence score) that a human attorney reviews, not a go/no-go recommendation.

Common pitfalls

  • Treating model output as final legal opinion — hallucinated clause interpretations have created real liability in early deployments
  • Processing contracts without jurisdiction context — the same liquidated damages clause carries different enforceability in California vs New York vs Germany
  • Ignoring cross-reference traps: a contract that says "as defined in Exhibit A" requires including Exhibit A in the input or the extraction will be wrong
  • Using short excerpts instead of full documents — missing surrounding context causes misclassification of standard boilerplate as unusual risk

Recommended routing

Sorted by best value for your usage
PRIMARY
Claude 4.6 Sonnet
Anthropic · quality 89 · 85 tok/s
Monthly cost$240
Vs baseline-85%
P50 latency1.1s
FALLBACK
GPT-5 mini
OpenAI · quality 84 · 280 tok/s
Monthly cost$26
Vs baseline80%
P50 latency0.3s
DeepSeek V3.5
DeepSeek · quality 81 · 95 tok/s
Monthly cost$7.84
Vs baseline94%
P50 latency1.5s

Baseline = GPT-5 at the same usage = $130/mo.

Routing simulator

Phase 2 preview

Drag the slider to split traffic between Claude 4.6 Sonnet (primary) and GPT-5 mini (fallback). See how your monthly bill moves — without writing a line of gateway code.

Primary: Claude 4.6 SonnetFallback: GPT-5 mini
70% Claude30% GPT-5
Blended monthly cost$176at the usage assumed above
Vs all-primary27%$240$176

Phase 2 turns this routing into a real OpenAI-compatible endpoint — one key, one bill, automatic failover. Drop your email to be notified at launch.

Stored in your browser only until our email backend lands. No tracking, one click to remove.

Use this routing via API

Phase 2 preview · gateway not live yet
PHASE 2 PREVIEW · gateway not live yetThis endpoint does not exist yet. The gateway is in Phase 2 — what you see below is a design preview of the planned interface, not a live API. We will email subscribers when it launches.
Preview the planned API call
$ curl https://api.aipricly.com/v1/chat/completions \
  -H "Authorization: Bearer $AIPC_KEY" \
  -H "Content-Type: application/json" \
  -d '{
    "scenario": "legal-contract-analysis",
    "messages": [{"role": "user", "content": "..."}]
  }'

Related scenarios