Luminance vs Evisort: Which in 2026?
Quick answer: These are the two serious options for reading a contract estate nobody has catalogued, and they are close on capability. Three things separate them. Luminance publishes a list price of roughly $41,340 a year for 1,000 documents with unlimited users, which almost nothing at this tier does; Evisort is reported at $30,000 to $150,000 with nothing published. Luminance charges by document volume and Evisort by contract, so a wide estate of short agreements costs very differently. And Evisort is now part of Workday, which leaves its commercial future less settled than it was.
At a glance
| Luminance | Evisort | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | Published list of ~$41,340 a year for 1,000 documents, unlimited users | No published price. Reported ~$30,000 to $150,000 a year |
| Price transparency | Published | No published price; reported figures available |
| Charged on | Document volume, users unlimited | Contract volume and configuration |
| Language coverage | Strong across many languages and jurisdictions | Narrower; strongest in English |
| Workflow after extraction | Light; it reads rather than routes | Present, with approvals attached |
| Ownership | Independent | Part of Workday following acquisition |
| Anomaly detection | Against standards learned from your own estate | Against extracted fields and defined rules |
| Best on | A wide multilingual estate with many users | An English-language estate needing workflow attached |
Which one, by buyer
| If you are | Choose | Because |
|---|---|---|
| A group with agreements across several languages | Luminance | Multilingual coverage is genuinely stronger, and on a cross-border estate that beats every other difference between them. |
| A business that wants findings routed, not just reported | Evisort | Workflow and approvals sit alongside extraction. Luminance reads well and does less about what it finds. |
| A team that has to budget before a sales process | Luminance | A published list price at this tier is close to unique, and it removes the step where most evaluations stall. |
| A business with many short agreements | Evisort | Luminance charges by document volume, so a wide estate of short contracts consumes the allowance quickly and the economics turn. |
| A team with many users needing access | Luminance | Unlimited users on the published tier, against a model where scope and configuration drive the number upward. |
| A business whose problem is approvals rather than reading | Neither | Both are extraction tools. Ironclad routes sign-off properly and neither of these is competing for that job. |
Documents against contracts
Luminance's published tier is roughly $41,340 a year for 1,000 documents with unlimited users. Evisort is reported at $30,000 to $150,000 and prices on contract volume and scope.
That difference matters more than it sounds. A business with 5,000 short supplier agreements burns through a document allowance quickly. A business with 200 long master agreements and forty people needing access gets far better economics from unlimited users.
Count both dimensions before comparing headline figures: how many documents, and how many people. Most estates are lopsided on one of the two, and that lopsidedness usually decides this.
The acquisition is a real variable
Evisort is now part of Workday, which changes how it will be sold, priced and developed in ways nobody outside can yet describe. The product remains strong and that is not in question.
What is worth asking on a multi-year commitment: whether renewal routes through Workday's commercial team, whether the roadmap now serves the wider suite, and what the relationship looks like if you are not a Workday customer.
Luminance's independence has some value here, though independence is a state that can change and nobody should treat it as permanent.
Both read better than they route
The most common disappointment with either is not accuracy. It is that the extraction worked, the report was correct, and nothing happened afterwards.
Evisort has the better answer, with workflow and approvals alongside extraction, so a finding can become a task. Luminance is lighter here and is closer to a reading tool than a system of record.
If your history includes buying analytics that produced accurate reports nobody acted on, weight that heavily. The tool that routes a finding to a named person with a date is worth more than the one that finds slightly more.
Frequently asked questions
Is Luminance or Evisort better?
Luminance for a multilingual estate, for teams needing many users, and for anyone who wants a published price. Evisort where findings need workflow attached and the estate is mostly English. They are close on extraction quality, so the differences that decide it are commercial rather than technical.
How much does each cost?
Luminance publishes a list price of approximately $41,340 a year for 1,000 documents with unlimited users, and enterprise deployments are reported from around $25,000. Evisort publishes nothing; reported annual contracts run approximately $30,000 to $150,000.
Which handles other languages better?
Luminance, clearly, and it is the strongest reason to choose it. For a group with agreements in several languages, that difference outweighs everything else on this page, because an extraction tool that misreads a language is worse than no extraction at all.
Does the Workday acquisition matter?
It is worth asking about on a multi-year commitment rather than assuming either way. Ask how renewal is handled, whether the roadmap now serves the Workday suite, and what the relationship looks like if you are not a Workday customer.
Which is better value for a large estate?
It depends on the shape rather than the size. Luminance's document-volume pricing suits fewer, longer agreements with many users. Evisort tends to work out better on a high count of shorter contracts. Count documents and users separately before comparing headline numbers.
Do either of them do approvals?
Evisort has workflow and approvals alongside extraction; Luminance is much lighter. Neither competes with Ironclad on conditional routing, so if the bottleneck is sign-off rather than reading, both are answering a different question.
What should we test in a demo?
Give both your worst documents: the oldest, the most badly scanned, and one in each language you actually hold. Vendor sample sets are clean and yours will not be, and extraction quality on bad inputs is the whole difference between a useful tool and an expensive report.