Pricing
AI contract review pricing: platform and a finished application in one fee
A firm is not buying boxed software. It gets the ATAILA private AI platform — EU hardware, operations, SLA-backed running — and the application built on top of it, already made for Hungarian contract review. One flat monthly fee, with no per-token billing. The figures below are indicative and net, excluding VAT.
What the fee covers
Platform and finished application — in one line item.
Two things get conflated. One is the platform: the hardware, the private AI serving, the operations and the release process. The other is the application: the specific workflow built for legal review that runs on that platform. The monthly fee covers both.
The ATAILA private AI platform
EU hardware, private AI serving with no external AI API, monitoring, backup and SLA-backed operation. The firm buys no server, updates no model and administers no system.
A finished, industry-tuned application
The complete contract review workflow, already built and tuned for Hungarian-language contracts and Hungarian contracting practice. Not an empty AI window the firm would have to work out how to prompt.
Implementation and training
Encoding the firm’s standard positions, tailoring the system to how the firm works — typically inside a week — and training for the firm’s staff. A one-off item alongside the monthly fee.
The application already exists — the firm is not commissioning it.
Having this workflow built from scratch on the platform would be a development project of its own, running into millions of forints: analysis, engineering, tuning, testing. With AI Szerződéselemző that step is already done. A firm enters through an implementation, not through a build.
What is already built →A living product
The software does not freeze on the day you buy it.
Boxed software stays at the firm exactly as it was bought. This does not: because ATAILA Coder and the Release Manager are part of the platform, the application can be developed further at any point in its lifecycle — with AI, quickly. A new clause type, a changed playbook position, a new contract type, a new report: each can be a real, requested change rather than a promise about the next major version.
A change is not hand-patched into the live system. It travels a governed release path, versioned and reversible — the same path every other live ATAILA product takes.
Monthly fee per firm
Three tiers, sized to the firm.
Two things move the tier: how many colleagues work in the system, and roughly how many documents pass through it each month. Features are not split across tiers — the tier is about size, not capability.
Entry
Sole practitioner or small firm
HUF 490,000 / month
≈ €1,200 / month
Indicative · net
A handful of users, typically starting with one or two contract types, at a moderate monthly document volume.
Practice
Mid-sized firm
HUF 790,000 / month
≈ €1,950 / month
Indicative · net
A wider group of users, several contract types, a steady review load and a playbook that keeps growing.
Firm
Larger firm or several groups
HUF 1,190,000 / month
≈ €2,950 / month
Indicative · net
A high number of users and a high document volume, across several groups — possibly running different playbook variants.
- Every figure is net, excluding VAT, and indicative: the exact fee follows from the firm’s own situation.
- A 12-month term at a flat monthly fee — the invoice never contains a usage number.
- The euro amounts are an indicative conversion; invoicing is in Hungarian forints.
- Firms move between tiers as their size or their needs change.
One-off item
Implementation
HUF 1,190,000
≈ €2,950
One-off · indicative · net
- Playbook setup: encoding the firm’s standard positions — what it accepts unchanged, what it routinely amends, what it never allows in any form.
- Tailoring to how the firm works: contract types, output formats, and the voice of the drafting suggestions.
- Training for the firm’s staff: how the system fits into the daily review work, and where its remit ends.
Tailoring to the individual firm typically takes under a week. This is not an administrative fee: it is what makes the output the firm’s own rather than the result of a generic checklist.
Own hardware
Enterprise edition
Individually quoted
On the firm’s own server
When the whole system — the AI models included — runs on the firm’s own server, pricing is individual: hardware, installation, operation and support go into a single quote. Privileged material then never leaves the building, physically either. The monthly tiers above apply to the edition running on our EU infrastructure.
Compare the two editions →Why a flat fee
Hungarian carries a price of its own on usage-based tools.
Public AI tools bill by usage, per token. A token is neither a word nor a character: the way these models split text is optimised for English, so the same content consumes materially more tokens in Hungarian than in English. Hungarian-language legal work is therefore structurally more expensive on such tools — and, on top of that, they cannot be used for privileged material at all. This language tax is not negotiable; it follows from the nature of the text.
AI Szerződéselemző is flat-fee. The invoice never contains a usage number: no tokens, no pages, no documents. A long, heavy month costs exactly what a quiet one costs.
| Aspect | Usage-based public AI tool | AI Szerződéselemző |
|---|---|---|
| What is billed | Usage: every token processed is a line item. | A flat monthly fee per firm, fixed for the 12-month term. |
| The effect of Hungarian | The same content consumes materially more tokens in Hungarian than in English — Hungarian work is structurally more expensive. | Language does not move the fee. A Hungarian contract costs the same as anything else. |
| Predictability | The monthly cost is decided after the fact, by how heavy the month turned out to be. | The figure is in the contract, up front. A heavy month costs the same as a quiet one. |
| Privileged material | Client files cannot go into a public AI service at all — that is not a pricing question. | Private AI: on EU hardware or on the firm’s own server, with no external AI API. |
| The firm’s own positions | They have to be restated at every review — and every restatement consumes usage. | The playbook is built in — encoded once, during implementation. |
In every tier
What the monthly fee includes
Whatever is in the product and in the platform comes with every tier. The tier is about seats and volume, not about what the system can do.
- The full six-step workflow: upload, clause extraction, risk flagging, drafting suggestions, cited Q&A, and the lawyer’s finalisation.
- Clause extraction: parties, obligations, term, liability, termination, GDPR clauses.
- Risk flagging against the firm’s own playbook, including missing protective clauses.
- Redline and standard clauses in the firm’s voice — as suggestions, not decisions.
- Cited Q&A on the document.
- Private AI serving on EU hardware, with no external AI API.
- SLA-backed operation, monitoring and backup — nothing for the firm to administer.
- A data processing agreement (DPA), an audit trail of every operation, and data export at any time.
- Product updates and support throughout the term.
- Change requests accepted at any point in the lifecycle, shipped through a governed DEV → UAT → PROD release.
What to measure it against
The fee replaces preparation hours
What stands against the monthly fee is not a software licence but the work that is measured in hours per contract today: reading the document through, pulling out the clauses, measuring them against the template, and noticing that a protective clause is missing. That preparation is what the system takes over — and alongside it the firm gets the platform, the operations, and the ability to keep developing the product.
We will not calculate a return for you and we promise no percentages. The firm measures the preparation time it no longer spends during the pilot, on its own contracts.
What does not change
The decision stays with the acting attorney
AI Szerződéselemző is software: it prepares, extracts, flags and suggests. The professional review, the decision and the responsibility remain with the acting attorney — the system deliberately does not take that step over, and the fee is not for it.
That is why the last of the six steps always belongs to the firm, in every tier and in both editions.
The full workflow →The way in
You do not have to subscribe blind.
A law firm should not decide from a price list. The pilot exists so the firm can see the output on its own, real contracts — on one contract type, against its own standard positions. The scope and the terms are agreed in writing up front, and nothing rolls over into a live subscription automatically.
Let us work out where your firm lands.
Tell us how many colleagues would use it, roughly how many contracts pass through each month, and which edition you have in mind — that turns into a concrete quote.