Midly.ai is promising, but it needs sharper critiques and fewer nags
I bought Midly.ai to speed up contract review for client engagements, NDAs, MSAs, and SOWs. After a week of hands-on use across several real contracts, I’m cautiously optimistic.
What works right now is the core: upload a contract, get a quick, structured analysis that flags key terms, risk areas, and negotiation levers. The interface is clean, onboarding is fast, and the output is readable enough to drop into my deal notes. On straightforward documents such as standard NDAs or MSAs, Midly.ai reliably surfaces the usual suspects: indemnity scope, liability caps, governing law, assignment, data protection, and termination for convenience. Turnaround is fast, and the summary sections are helpful for time-boxed reviews when clients want a gut check before a call.
Where Midly.AI falls short for my use case is depth and pushback. I’d like Midly.ai to be more critical in its commentary, particularly on clauses that are technically “standard” but still risky in practice. For example, I want it to explicitly question carve-outs that nullify a liability cap, call out one-sided audit rights, or highlight when a data processing clause is missing sub-processor transparency. The platform often states the clause and risk level without offering pointed counter-positions, sample redlines, or a sense of market norms by contract type and deal size. When I’m reviewing for clients, I need those sharper edges to drive negotiations.
The second friction point is the persistent upsell to request legal support/consultation. I understand the model and I’m not against the option, but the upsell button is everywhere and not dismissible. Give me a toggle to hide or de-emphasize it. If I need a lawyer, I’ll ask. Moreover, in my case, I've a go-to lawyer I trust when needed, so the chances are low to nonexistent that I ask Midly.AI for help. Constant prompts slow me down and undermine the otherwise focused feel of the tool.
Language coverage is another area where I’d prefer restraint over breadth. I don’t need extra languages; I need high-confidence parsing and commentary in one. Getting legal documents right in a single language is a hard enough problem. Focus there. Focus on English!
For context, I’m using Midly.ai alongside RobinAI and LegittAI. Each has trade-offs: RobinAI is strong on clause libraries and negotiation suggestions; LegittAI moves quickly and is cost-effective. Midly.ai’s advantage, from what I’ve seen, is a cleaner UX and approachable summaries. If Midly leans into deeper critique, optional redline templates, and more granular risk justifications tied to contract context, it could become my first stop.
Patience_Midly.ai
Edited Aug 12, 2025Your feedback genuinely made my day… not because it’s all praise, but because it’s clear, thoughtful, and exactly the kind of real-world perspective we need as we keep building. You’ve captured both what’s working and where we need to go deeper, and we’ve already started talking internally about how to address the points you raised.
I really appreciate how you described your experience, and we hear you! Your push for sharper critiques and more pointed commentary is spot-on, so we’re already tweaking our prompts. Clearly there’s something here that’s resonating, and our goal is to solve the problem completely and give you the best experience possible.
We’re mapping changes that will keep Midly approachable while delivering deeper, more actionable insights. Our objective is to provide the kind of contract intelligence that actually moves negotiations forward. I’d love to keep you in the loop as these updates roll out so you can see how your feedback is directly shaping the product. You’re always welcome to email me directly at patience@midly.ai to share more thoughts or check in on progress.
Feedback like this is exactly how we’ll get to the full vision for Midly.