We Benchmarked Lexcel Against BigLaw. Here's What We Found.

Overview

We knew Lexcel could go from raw data room to polished diligence report. The question was: how fast, how accurate, and with how little prompting? To find out, we compared Lexcel’s unreviewed first draft against a final work product from a BigLaw firm on the same nine-figure M&A transaction.

The BigLaw report was presented to the buyer in the transaction as part of a comprehensive ~100-page diligence report covering multiple workstreams. This benchmark compared only the commercial contracts section, which comprised 20 pages (the largest section) of the BigLaw report. The test used an 800-file data room with no pre-existing analysis.

Comparison Summary

Commercial Contract Diligence Report
	BigLaw	Lexcel
Time	~1 month*	1 hour 40 minutes (with only four natural-language prompts)
Team	4 attorneys (1 partner, 1 mid-level, 2 juniors)	1 mid-level attorney
Output	Final reviewed product	First draft (unreviewed)

Findings Comparison
Materiality	Unique to BigLaw Report	Unique to Lexcel Report
Material	5	7
Notable	6	6
Informational	7	5

*We do not have specific billed time data for the BigLaw report, but know it was produced over a 1-month period and required significant time to review and analyze each commercial contract, formulate the analysis, draft the report, and undergo multiple rounds of review.

Of the 67 findings compared, each report contained 18 findings not identified by the other. Lexcel identified 7 Material findings that did not appear in BigLaw’s report. BigLaw’s report contained 5 Material findings not identified by Lexcel, 6 Notable findings (matching Lexcel’s 6), and 7 Informational findings (compared to Lexcel’s 5). See below for more information on findings.

Methodology

About This Study

This is an internal benchmark study conducted by Lexcel to compare our platform’s output against a BigLaw final work product on a real nine-figure M&A transaction. The comparison was conducted by two former BigLaw transactional attorneys. All findings were verified against source documents.

Process

Lexcel’s first draft commercial contracts diligence report was generated using only four natural-language prompts.

Prompt 1: Document Organization. User instructed Lexcel to organize all commercial agreements from the data room into structured tables by contract type, ensuring no documents were missed and templates were identified. Lexcel organized 145 agreements into 9 contract category tables.

After prompt 1, the user leveraged Lexcel’s built-in question templates, applying them to each smart table via drag-and-drop. These templates specified the key diligence questions for every contract type. A 13-question template focused on general M&A diligence was used.

Prompts 2 and 3: Findings Extraction. User instructed Lexcel to analyze the organized contracts and extract findings across key diligence topics: expiring contracts, change of control provisions, IP licenses, restrictive covenants, minimum requirements, survival provisions, and whether agreements were on the target’s paper or individually negotiated. The user quickly followed up with an additional prompt to ensure analysis was formatted into report-ready paragraphs.

Prompt 4: Report Drafting. User instructed Lexcel to draft a formal commercial contracts diligence report organized by contract type, with an executive overview highlighting the most significant findings, defined terms for key agreements, and material findings only. Lexcel produced a 3,200-word diligence report with inline citations.

The entire workflow took 1 hour and 40 minutes. Document organization took 10 minutes; analysis took 1 hour and 20 minutes; report drafting took 10 minutes. The four prompts totaled approximately 300 words of natural-language instruction.

(Technical note: Lexcel paused once mid-response, requiring a “continue” submission to resume. This is not counted as a substantive prompt.)

Scope

We started with a data room containing approximately 800 documents. Lexcel identified the 145 commercial agreements (approximately 18% of the data room) relevant for our review, organized across 9 contract categories:

1. Service Provider Agreements (20)
2. Marketing and Partnership Agreements (27)
3. Pricing Agreements (50)
4. Real Estate Agreements (15)
5. Software and Technology Vendor Agreements (5)
6. Payment Services Agreements (3)
7. Customer Agreements (7)
8. Service Provider Indemnification Agreements (3)
9. Corporate Transaction Agreements (15)

For each contract type, Lexcel analyzed: contract narrative and scope, initial term and renewal provisions, termination for convenience rights, change of control (consent and notice requirements), assignment restrictions, IP licensed by the target, restrictive covenants binding on the target, material indemnification provisions, minimum requirements imposed on the target, survival provisions detrimental to the target, and preferential rights.

The result: a comprehensive diligence report organized by contract type and topic, with each finding linked to the source material.

Comparison Approach

We extracted every discrete finding from both reports and classified them by materiality:

• Material: Deal-level impact, including termination rights, change of control restrictions, uncapped liability, assignment restrictions, exclusivity arrangements, significant financial exposure, non-competes, and material operational constraints in key markets
• Notable: Negotiation points or moderate risk, including auto-renewal terms, non-standard notice periods, non-solicitation restrictions, liability caps with carve-outs, insurance requirements, and operational restrictions
• Informational: Minor deviations, including administrative terms, marketing restrictions, standard warranties, immaterial thresholds, and expired relationships without ongoing obligations

Materiality levels (Material, Notable, Informational) for each finding were assigned by Claude Opus 4.5 blindly (without knowledge of which report the finding came from) based on the deal-level impact, negotiation relevance, and materiality criteria referenced above.

Findings Considered

Lexcel’s commercial contracts report contained 97 findings; BigLaw’s commercial contracts section contained 57 findings. BigLaw’s report was understandably more selective, not including findings meeting an implied materiality threshold.

To ensure a fair comparison, we applied the same selectivity standard to Lexcel’s output. We excluded findings that:

• Required knowing information disclosed in management and diligence calls (BigLaw had access to these; Lexcel did not).
• Referenced documents that were not included in the data room provided to Lexcel (Lexcels data room, although substantially completed, was not provided all commercial contracts included in the complete dataroom).
• Related to expired or expiring contracts. Because Lexcel’s analysis occurred months after BigLaw’s, Lexcel naturally identified significantly more contracts as expired or expiring within the review window.
• Were negative findings stating the absence of a provision (e.g., “these agreements did not contain restrictive covenants”). Lexcel’s first draft report included significantly more negative findings than Big Law’s final report.
• Fell below the materiality threshold BigLaw applied (e.g., Lexcel flagged termination for convenience provisions requiring over 60 days notice; BigLaw only included provisions requiring 60 days or less).

After exclusions, 67 findings remained for head-to-head comparison.

Findings

Summary

Findings compared: 67

Materiality	Unique to BigLaw Report	Unique to Lexcel Report
Material	5	7
Notable	6	6
Informational	7	5
TOTAL	18	18

Both reports contained 18 findings not identified by the other. Lexcel’s first draft identified more Material findings than BigLaw’s final work product.

Material Findings Unique to Lexcel’s Report

1. Multi-Million Dollar Minimum Commitment. A cloud services agreement required multi-million dollar minimum spend over three commitment periods, with significant ongoing annual exposure.
2. Minimum Commitments Survive Termination. That same agreement specified that minimum commitment obligations survive termination, meaning the buyer cannot escape by terminating early.
3. Payment Processor Exclusivity. A payment services agreement required the target to use the provider as its sole payment processor (with limited exceptions).
4. Merger Consent Requirement. A prior acquisition agreement required consent for any assignment “by operation of law,” which imposes risk of triggering upon change of control of target.
5. Immediate Counterparty Termination Right. A partnership agreement permitted the counterparty to terminate immediately for convenience, while the target had no corresponding right.
6. Asymmetric Indemnification Standards. A service provider agreement held the target to a simple negligence standard while only requiring the counterparty to indemnify for gross negligence.
7. Broader IP Grants. Two partnership agreements contained IP grants extending beyond trademarks to copyrightable materials and data.

Material Findings Unique to BigLaw’s Report

1. Narrower Indemnification Coverage. One service provider agreement contained narrower indemnification coverage (breach and negligence only) compared to other service provider agreements in the portfolio.
2. Unlimited Liability Including Consequential Damages. Two partnership agreements exposed the target to uncapped liability including indirect and consequential damages.
3. IP Warranty Gaps. A development agreement disclaimed all warranties and only indemnified for patent claims, with liability capped at 12 months of fees.
4. IP Warranty Gaps. Another development agreement provided no IP infringement warranty and no indemnification for IP claims.
5. Broad Indemnity Carve-Out. One partnership agreement had a liability cap but carved out all claims arising from the target’s acts, misconduct, or omissions, effectively making the cap meaningless.

Note: BigLaw’s report contained one mistaken finding that conflated two service provider agreement types, incorrectly characterizing one agreement’s indemnification as narrower when it used the same standard (breach and negligence/willful misconduct).

Contributing Factors for Findings Unique to BigLaw

Warranty language was not included as a specific search topic in Lexcel’s analysis. Five findings unique to BigLaw were warranty-related: 2 Material findings and 3 Informational findings. This has been added to our baseline review scope for future analyses. Notably, adding warranty analysis would have taken less than 10 minutes with additional user prompting to the agent.

Discussion

Implications

Commercial contracts diligence has historically involved a tradeoff between thoroughness and cost. Comprehensive review requires significant attorney hours and budget constraints often limit scope. This benchmark suggests that tradeoff may no longer be necessary.

For law firms: First drafts may be generated in under two hours for similar commercial contracts reviews, allowing attorney time to focus on risk assessment, judgment calls, and client communication rather than document extraction.

For private equity: Red-flag reports can be available shortly after data room access, enabling faster screening decisions without proportional cost increases.

For Corporate Development Teams: Comprehensive diligence becomes economically viable even for smaller transactions or tighter timelines.

Beyond the Report

Unlike BigLaw’s two-dimensional commercial contracts section, Lexcel’s first draft output within the Lexcel workspace provides citations for each finding, with each citation linking directly to the source material. Additionally, the report is collaborative (multiple team members can work on it simultaneously) and editable by Lexcel’s agent, enabling iterative refinement and updates as new information becomes available.

What We Learned

Material warranties, unusual representations, and payment obligations have been added to Lexcel’s standard M&A contracts review template based on this analysis. Lexcel’s commercial contracts report was 3,200 words compared to BigLaw’s commercial contracts section of 5,500 words; the difference consisted primarily of additional context and framing, while material findings coverage was comparable. It is important to note that including additional content to particular sections / findings in the Lexcel report can be achieved by simply prompting Lexcel’s agent to do so.

Benchmark Limitations

1. Scope Dependency. Results depend on what you ask Lexcel to analyze. We did not include warranty language in our scope, which is why warranty-related findings appeared only in BigLaw’s report. Adding this analysis would have taken less than 10 minutes with an additional prompt.
2. First Draft vs. Final Product. This was an unreviewed first draft. Attorney review would catch gaps, refine language, and add judgment. The comparison was structured to favor the BigLaw benchmark.
3. Document Completeness. Lexcel can only review what is in the data room. Some BigLaw findings referenced management calls or documents outside our subset. We excluded these from the comparison (see Findings Considered section above).
4. Expired Contract Findings Excluded. Findings related to expired or expiring contracts were excluded from the comparison. Because Lexcel’s analysis occurred months after BigLaw’s, Lexcel identified significantly more contracts as expired or expiring within the review window. Including these would have unfairly skewed results in Lexcel’s favor.
5. Single Data Point. This is one benchmark on one real transaction. We selected commercial contracts because findings are objective and this workstream comprises the bulk of most diligence reports. We plan to conduct similar studies on other diligence sections.
6. Materiality Classification. See Comparison Approach section above.
7. Data Room Quality. Although Lexcel is built to handle messy, poorly organized data rooms, this data room was relatively organized compared to typical M&A data rooms.

Conclusion

This benchmark compared Lexcel’s first draft commercial contracts report against BigLaw’s commercial contracts section (a significant portion of their final work product) on a real M&A transaction. Despite the disparity in review time and resources, Lexcel’s output identified comparable findings overall and more Material findings specifically.

The results represent a single data point. We selected commercial contracts for this initial benchmark because findings are objective and verifiable, and this workstream comprises a significant portion of most diligence reports. Additional benchmarks across other diligence sections, including IP, employment, and real estate, are planned.