Alloovium vs Document Crunch: what's the difference?

Buyers ask us this one directly, so here is a direct answer rather than a feature grid designed to make us win every row.

Document Crunch and Alloovium overlap on one moment, reading a construction contract with AI, and diverge on everything around it. Document Crunch is a contract review specialist. Alloovium is whole-project document intelligence that includes contract review. Depending on your job, either could be the right call.

What is Document Crunch, and what is it good at?

Document Crunch is a construction-specific AI platform for contract and specification review, acquired by Trimble in April 2026 for approximately US$250 million. It flags risky provisions before signing, answers questions about contracts and specs with cited sources, and lets companies encode their review standards as playbooks so every contract gets the same rigour. It had been deployed on more than 10,000 projects at acquisition.

Those are real strengths, and we will not pretend otherwise. If your problem statement is "our estimators sign contracts nobody has properly read, and we want a consistent pre-signing gate", Document Crunch was purpose-built for that sentence. The Trimble acquisition also means deep integration with Trimble Construction One is the stated direction, which is a plus if that is your stack.

Pricing is sales-led rather than published, so expect a procurement conversation rather than a signup page.

What is Alloovium, and what job does it do?

Alloovium ingests the whole project record, contracts, drawings, specs, emails and meetings, and answers questions with citations that open the exact clause or drawing location the answer came from. It monitors notice and deadline obligations against what your contract actually says, and it works alongside Procore, Autodesk Construction Cloud, SharePoint and Outlook rather than asking you to move anything.

The founding observation is that contract risk rarely stays inside the contract. The clause says notice within 7 days of becoming aware of a delay. Whether you are inside that window depends on a site email from three weeks ago and what was said in Tuesday's meeting. A contract-only tool cannot see either. Alloovium is built so the contract, the correspondence and the meetings are one corpus, and the answer cites all of them.

We are Australian-first, which shows up in unglamorous but load-bearing ways: business-day time bar arithmetic, local contract conventions, and free tools like the notice time bar calculator built around the questions Australian contractors actually argue about.

Where do they overlap, and where do they diverge?

They overlap on pre-signing review: both will read a draft contract, flag what needs attention, and answer clause-level questions with citations. They diverge on corpus and on what happens after signing. The honest comparison:

Two caveats in fairness. Document Crunch's public materials describe more than pre-signing review, including project-phase assistance, so evaluate the current product rather than this table alone. And "reads everything" is only worth having if the citations hold up, so test that claim hard on both tools.

Which one fits your team?

Pick by the moment you are actually buying for. If the pain is signing, a review specialist fits. If the pain is delivery, the two years of emails, revisions, delays and claims after signing, whole-project intelligence fits.

Choose Document Crunch if review volume is the job, a legal or risk team owns the outcome, and Trimble alignment helps you. Choose Alloovium if the same person who worries about the contract also worries about what the latest drawing revision changed, whether the delay notice went in on time, and where the email that proves it is. For a 25 to 150 person GC or subcontractor, that is usually one operations director or contracts manager wearing every one of those hats.

How should you test this yourself?

Run the same real subcontract through both, then add the rest of the project and see which tool survives. From the evaluations we see, the pre-signing questions come out respectably on any serious construction AI tool. The separating test is the second step: load the correspondence and the meeting minutes, then ask "are we still inside the notice window for the event in last month's site memo?" That question needs the contract, the email record and the calendar at once. Whichever tool answers it with citations you can open and verify is the one that will hold up on a live project. Our post on what AI document review can actually do has a longer version of this test.

What to do next

If your job is delivery, not just signing, book a demo and bring a real project: the contract plus the email thread that worries you. Ask the time bar question and click the citations. If you just need today's answer, the free notice and claim drafter will draft the notice while you decide.