Compare gives employment teams the answer at population scale. Load the contracts, ask the questions once - notice, non-compete, clawback - and it returns a grid: every contract a row, every answer cited to its clause, every off-market term flagged while you watch.
Employment advice rarely starts with a document. It starts with a population - a TUPE transfer, workforce due diligence on a deal, a harmonisation project after a merger. The client's question is simple: which of these contracts can hurt us? The answer is buried in clause 15 of four hundred near-identical agreements.
The traditional method is a junior, a spreadsheet and a fortnight. It prices honest work out of reach - reviews get sampled instead of read, outliers are found by luck, and the one contract with the twelve-month non-compete surfaces after the deal has signed.
Compare reads the whole population at once. Each question becomes a column and each contract a row, and every cell carries a citation back to the clause it came from - open it and the contract appears at the exact wording.
The firm's standard terms sit behind the grid as a benchmark. Anything that drifts is flagged and filterable - off-market covenants, missing clawback, non-standard notice - and answers the model is less than certain about queue for a lawyer instead of hiding in the average.
Four hundred contracts, read like one.
Population-scale review is the clearest case for tabular review in law: the questions repeat, the documents rhyme, and the billing model punishes thoroughness. As a product, the economics flip - the grid reads contract four hundred as carefully as contract one, and a fixed fee still improves margin.
It compounds, too. Every review sharpens the firm's benchmark of what market looks like, and that benchmark - encoded in the product - becomes the reason employment clients bring the next population to the firm that owns it.
Get in touch and tell us what problem you are trying to solve