Anytime AI vs Eve: how they compare in 2026

The models are the product and there is nothing underneath them to sell, which is the A band. Every published capability is model output: turning medical records into structured chronologies and overviews, identifying deviations from the standard of care, drafting demand letters from the resulting record, reviewing discovery, summarizing depositions and filings, drafting motions and memos, and answering questions across a matter through the Talk to Teddy assistant. There is no repository, case management system, calendar or billing layer being licensed underneath. The point is settled by the vendor's own integration strategy rather than inferred: it connects two-way to SmartAdvocate and to Litify, both of them case management systems already in this index, and to SharePoint, Dropbox, OneDrive, Google Drive and Box for storage. It plugs into the systems a firm already runs rather than replacing them, which is what a pure intelligence layer does. The commercial framing matches, the company describing itself as an all-in-one agentic AI platform for plaintiff lawyers. This grade says nothing about how much is disclosed about those models; on that, see the Model Supply Chain row, which sits far lower. Verified 12 September 2026.

AI native from founding and now architecturally explicit about it. The company was founded in 2020 to build this and has no preceding product to attach models to. The January 2026 relaunch as an AI Workforce is built around three coordinated agent roles, Agents, Auditor and Analyst, and the June 2026 EveOS launch positions the platform as an AI native operating layer for the firm rather than a tool inside one. Every deliverable is generated: intake evaluation, medical overviews, demand letters, complaints and discovery responses on both sides of the request. The system is also stated to adapt to a firm's writing style with use, which is model behavior rather than configuration. Remove the models and nothing remains. Sixth A on this axis in the pull and the third consecutive one in this category, which now looks structural rather than coincidental: every plaintiff side vendor built so far was model first, because the underlying task of reading medical records at volume was never automatable any other way.

Grounding is real, documented and described down to the technique, short of any published measurement, which is B. The vendor names its method rather than gesturing at it: hallucination is addressed by combining information extraction with retrieval-augmented generation, and the assistant is described as a closed system that answers using only the documents inside a specific matter, with every response tied to a cited source in the case file. The vendor puts that as a rule, no citation, no answer, and states that answers do not come from a general training corpus but from the medical records, deposition transcripts, discovery responses, photographs and police reports in the matter. Output carries the citations through: chronologies are produced in timeline format with citations, and demand letters are described as citation-ready with integrated treatment summaries. That is a described retrieval method with linked sources, which is what B asks for. What holds it off A is measurement. No accuracy figure, error rate, test set, sample or third-party evaluation is published anywhere, and no failure mode is named. R15 applies to the authority limbs: the product's citations point to the customer's own case file rather than to legal authority, so citator-style checking does not bite, and the legal research tool's sources are not identified. Verified 12 September 2026.

Grounding is architectural, verification is built into the interface, and no measurement is published. The vendor states that all sources for Eve's answers are referenced with links back to the firm's own documents, that the system proactively validates its responses, and that a user can verify a response in one click. Proactive validation is a stronger claim than passive citation because it describes the system checking itself rather than only showing its work, and the Auditor agent role introduced in the January 2026 AI Workforce release suggests that checking is a named component rather than a background behavior. Held at B because none of it is quantified or specified: no accuracy figure, no extraction recall on medical records, no hallucination rate, no evaluation, no description of what proactive validation actually tests or what happens when validation fails, and no statement of behavior when the underlying records are incomplete or contradictory. A named auditor agent with no published output is a claim about architecture rather than evidence of accuracy.

Autonomy is claimed and oversight is asserted without a mechanism, which is C. The autonomy claims are strong and repeated: agentic review of high-volume discovery, agentic workflows across the case lifecycle, an assistant that in the vendor's words thinks through facts, timelines and legal theories rather than merely summarizing, and a platform that lets firms run more matters at once without adding headcount. The oversight side is a posture rather than a control. The vendor says the platform works alongside a firm's attorneys through the full lifecycle of every case, and its practice-area material describes output as professional documents that attorneys can refine and use immediately, which positions a human as the reviewer. Nothing published turns that into a structure. No mode is described, no threshold is stated at which the system proceeds or stops, no approval step or review surface is named, no escalation route is set out, and nothing distinguishes a task the platform completes from one it proposes. The nearest thing to a boundary is the grounding rule graded on the row above, that the assistant answers only from the matter file and says so when the record does not support an answer, which constrains what it will assert rather than who checks it. Verified 12 September 2026.

The most autonomous product in this category and the most explicit about it, with the oversight built as a role rather than asserted as a principle. The AI Workforce is described as three coordinated agents that advance cases proactively rather than waiting for attorney prompts, which is a real autonomy claim stated plainly rather than hedged, and EveOS extends that to an operational layer. The Auditor role is the notable design decision: a checking function is a named part of the workforce rather than a caveat, which is the correct architecture for autonomous case advancement. Held at B because the boundaries are entirely undescribed. Nothing states what an agent may do without attorney approval, whether anything is sent or filed unattended, what triggers Auditor review, what standard it applies, what happens when Agent and Auditor disagree, or how a firm configures the limits. Proactive advancement of a live case is the highest autonomy claim on this index and it arrives without a single published bound.

Named customers in unusual depth, without an outcome carrying a method, which is B. The volume and specificity of attribution is the strongest in this lane: a logo wall of nine firms including Brown Chiari, Lomurro Law Trial Lawyers, Mandell Boisclair & Mandell, Truck Wreck Justice, Ernst Law Group, Romano Law Group, Tosh Law Firm, Clement Law Group and Garcia & Coman, and roughly eighteen testimonials every one of which carries a named attorney, a title and a firm, from Stephen Garcia at Garcia & Coman to Blake Dickson at The Dickson Firm and Carma Henson at Henson Fuerst. Several describe the work in domain terms a practitioner would recognize, MARs, TARs, ADLs and nursing home flow sheets. One testimonial contains a figure, Ernest Tosh of Tosh Law Firm describing eighty percent of the time freed on some of his tasks, and one describes a validation exercise, Stephen Garcia running the platform against a past case with results consistent with the firm's own work. Neither carries a method, a period or a dated artifact behind it, so neither reaches the A limb; a vendor-reported figure inside a quotation is a claim rather than a measurement. Two things are recorded and deliberately not credited: four named attorneys published as product co-designers, two of whom also appear as customers, and eight state trial-lawyer association partnerships, which are sponsorships rather than deployments. Verified 12 September 2026.

The first A on this axis in the pull, and it is earned on the combination rather than on any single item. Scale is published and dated: more than 450 firms, more than 350 added in eight months, more than 200,000 legal cases processed annually, and firms collectively recovering more than $3.5 billion in settlements and judgments, all stated in a dated September 2025 funding announcement. Named customers with quantified outcomes and attributed comment: Frontier Law Center, with managing partner Manny Starr quoted by name in a named publication in March 2026, reporting intake conversion rising from 10 percent to 35 percent, intake process time falling by 50 minutes per call, and average case value increasing 90 percent. James Scott Farrin attorneys completing medical chronologies in minutes that previously took weeks. A separate verified user report of case capacity increasing up to 2.5 times without adding staff. An outsider can name the firm, name the partner, find the publication and check the date without contacting the vendor, which is the bar this axis sets. The figures still carry no methodology or baseline, and the $3.5 billion recovery total is a sum over customer outcomes rather than a demonstrated causal contribution, so the note records what the numbers are and are not.

Substantive published commitments short of the full picture, and this record reaches the limb that the index's rule makes decisive and that most of the corpus misses. Privilege and work product are addressed head-on rather than folded into a general confidentiality claim: the home page carries a block headed Attorney-Client Privilege stating that the architecture ensures no third party can access privileged communications or case strategy, and the FAQ answers the question directly, describing end-to-end encryption and firm-held encryption keys and stating that only the firm can access and decrypt its data and that Anytime AI cannot view client information, case strategy or communications. Training is addressed as a flat policy commitment, that case files, medical records and legal work product are never used to train any AI model. Access is documented: role-based permissions, a need-to-know rule backed by contractual non-disclosure agreements, audit logging, and a closed private environment contrasted with public AI tools. Two of the five limbs are not met. Retention and deletion are not stated on any readable surface, and no position is published on what any third-party model provider may retain, no provider being named. Recorded rather than resolved: the firm-held key claim sits against a platform that performs server-side agentic analysis of those same documents, and the eighteen-page data policy that would reconcile it could not be opened by this index. Verified 12 September 2026.

THE FIRST RECORD IN 42 TO ADDRESS ATTORNEY CLIENT PRIVILEGE DIRECTLY. Every other vendor on this index, including the two plaintiff side competitors already built, graded C or B here on general security credentials with privilege simply unmentioned. Eve states that the platform is built with attorney client privilege as a first principle, that case data is never used to train shared models, and that data is kept strictly isolated to the firm at organization, user and workflow levels. Three named isolation levels is a specification rather than an assurance, and workflow level isolation in particular addresses the case where one matter's content should not surface inside another. Paired with the credentials this category actually needs: SOC 2 Type 2 certification, HIPAA compliance for the claimant protected health information the product ingests, and AES-256 end to end encryption. Graded A because it is strictly more than the B records in this category, which carry the same class of credential without any privilege position at all. The isolation architecture is asserted rather than documented and no privilege specific attestation exists, which is why the note says so, but the ladder has to reward a vendor that answers the question over vendors that do not acknowledge it.

The intended audience is unambiguous and the advice line is not addressed, which is where this lands. The index's rule governs which limbs bite. The audience limb is answered completely: the platform is sold exclusively to plaintiff law firms and attorneys, is not offered to consumers or claimants, and its practice-area material positions output as professional documents that attorneys refine and use, which frames the product as drafting support rather than advice. The vendor also acknowledges the professional context in general terms, noting on its own blog that bar associations have issued guidance reminding lawyers that the duty of competence applies to AI tools, and warning that a general-purpose chatbot is not safe for substantive legal tasks. What is missing is everything that would make that a position. No statement was located that the vendor is not a law firm, that output does not constitute legal advice, or that a lawyer must exercise independent professional judgment before filing. Nothing addresses supervision of machine-drafted pleadings, and no jurisdictional limit appears despite research being claimed across all fifty states. The published Master Software Subscription Agreement would ordinarily carry that language; it is dated 5 February 2026, is published ungated as a PDF, and could not be opened by this index, so the row would move on a reading. Verified 12 September 2026.

Not located, and the gap is wider here than on any other record in this category because the autonomy claim is larger. Agents are stated to advance cases proactively without waiting for attorney prompts, and the product drafts complaints and discovery responses, which are filed documents bearing an attorney's signature and certification. Nothing published addresses the supervising attorney's duty over proactively advanced casework, what an attorney is certifying when signing a machine drafted pleading, the professional responsibility dimension of generated discovery responses, or any bar guidance. The Auditor agent is a quality mechanism inside the product and not a statement about the lawyer's own obligations. Checked the home page, the working with Eve page, the product material, the press coverage of both 2026 launches and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

A governance position is published without a mechanism, a testing regime or anything a buyer could audit, which is C. What exists is a set of stated commitments rather than a program: a closed AI architecture contrasted with public tools, a zero data training policy stated repeatedly and unconditionally, encryption and role-based access as design principles, and a compliance wall that names NIST 800-171 and the Cloud Security Alliance alongside the security standards. Those are real positions and they keep the row off the floor. None of what the higher bands require appears. No AI governance or responsible AI page exists, no AI-specific framework is named and no certification against one is claimed, nobody inside the company is identified as accountable for AI decisions, nothing describes what is evaluated before a model or feature ships, and no testing or red-teaming regime is set out. Bias is addressed nowhere, and the gap is worth naming on this product rather than passing over: the platform reads medical records to identify deviations from the standard of care and to build damages narratives, and nothing published considers whether that analysis performs evenly across patient populations, care settings or record quality. Verified 12 September 2026.

Nothing published about how the models are governed, evaluated or monitored. No AI policy, no model card, no bias or fairness testing, no evaluation methodology or result, no accuracy monitoring, no drift statement, no named governance body and no ISO 42001. The category risk flagged on EvenUp and Supio applies here with an additional dimension: this product performs case evaluation and identifies missed case value, so it makes judgments about what a claim is worth, and it does so inside an agent architecture that advances cases proactively. A systematic tendency in valuation would propagate through 200,000 cases annually without an attorney necessarily prompting the judgment that produced it. The Auditor agent checks output within the system and is not an independent evaluation of the models. Checked the home page, the working with Eve page, the press coverage and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

Protection is documented and the lifecycle is not, which is C. The protection half is specific and published: AES-256 encryption at rest and TLS 1.2 or later in transit, role-based access controls and permissions, a need-to-know rule backed by contractual non-disclosure agreements, audit logging, encrypted backups, continuous monitoring, and a closed private-cloud environment. For a platform holding protected health information that is a real and legible security posture, and the vendor sets it out as such rather than asserting enterprise-grade security and stopping. The other half of the axis is absent from every readable surface. No retention period is stated for case files, prompts or generated documents; no deletion right or export-on-termination commitment is published; no subprocessor list exists anywhere and no processor is named; and no breach or incident notification commitment was located. The eighteen-page Data Privacy and Security Policy is published as an ungated PDF and is exactly the document that would carry all four, and this index's fetcher would not open it on the date shown. That is a reader limit rather than a finding about the vendor, and the row would move in either direction on a reading. Verified 12 September 2026.

A genuine stewardship position, disclosed with a qualifier the vendor did not have to admit. Stated: case data is encrypted with AES-256 end to end, never used to train shared models, and kept strictly isolated to the firm at organization, user and workflow levels. Separately and openly stated: the system learns a firm's tone, preferred language and style and adapts further with use. Those two statements are consistent and together describe a specific architecture, being firm scoped adaptation with no cross customer pooling, and disclosing the second alongside the first is more candid than the vendors who state a training commitment and leave the learning behavior unmentioned. Held at B rather than A because the specification stops short: no retention period is published for case content or generated output, no deletion right at matter close is described, nothing states whether firm scoped adaptation can be disabled, and nothing describes what happens to an adapted model when a firm terminates. HIPAA compliance covers protection of the claimant health data rather than its use.

Nothing published on who bears the loss when the system is wrong was located, which is the D band, and the note must be read with the retrieval position stated in full. No warranty, indemnity, liability cap, exclusion, service credit or insurance position appears on any readable surface: not on the home page, not on the security page, not on the practice-area pages, and not in any published FAQ. Nothing addresses what happens if a medical chronology misses a treatment entry, if a demand letter misstates damages, or if a discovery response is wrong, on a product whose outputs go to insurers and into court. The vendor does publish a Master Software Subscription Agreement, dated 5 February 2026 and hosted as an ungated PDF, and that is the document that would ordinarily carry every one of those terms. This index's fetcher would not open it: the direct fetch was refused and R8 step 4 recovered nothing beyond the link itself, the file not being held in the search index. So this grade records what is established as located on the date and is not a finding that no such terms exist. The row would move, potentially several bands, on a reading of that agreement, and it is named here so a future pass knows exactly which document to open first. Verified 12 September 2026.

No published position located. Nothing was found on liability for AI output, warranty, service levels or remedy. The exposure is the largest in this category because the autonomy is: agents that advance cases proactively can act on a matter without an attorney initiating the step, and the product drafts pleadings and discovery responses subject to filing deadlines and certification requirements. A missed deadline, a defective discovery response or an understated case valuation all carry consequences that fall on the firm and ultimately on the injured claimant, and no published vendor position addresses any of them. Checked the home page, the working with Eve page, the press coverage and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026. Enterprise agreements govern this and are not public.

Real integrations, named and specific to the buyer's stack, short of the depth an implementer could work from. The named connections are the right ones for a plaintiff firm and two of them are checkable against this index: SmartAdvocate, described as a two-way integration, and Litify, both case management systems already indexed here. Storage integration covers the four platforms a firm is likely to hold records in, SharePoint, OneDrive, Google Drive, Dropbox and Box. The vendor's framing is that a firm connects Anytime AI to the systems it already uses rather than migrating, which is consistent with the platform being an intelligence layer rather than a system of record. What holds it off A is that only one integration has its direction stated and none has its contents described. Nothing published sets out which objects sync, whether documents are pulled or pushed, whether generated work product returns to the case management system, what a firm must configure, or what permissions the connector requires. No API, developer documentation, connector catalog or integration page was located, and no authentication method is described. Verified 12 September 2026.

Nothing located, and this grade carries the weakest research basis on the record. No case management system integration, no document management connector, no records retrieval integration, no research provider and no API documentation were found across the home page, the working with Eve page, the product material, the press coverage of the AI Workforce and EveOS launches and the site navigation checked on 29 Aug 2026. The positioning offers one possible explanation and is not treated as an answer: EveOS is described as an AI native operational platform for the firm, which suggests the product intends to be the operating layer rather than a component that plugs into one, and a system positioned to replace the operational stack has less need to integrate with it. That is inference and is not credited. Recorded as a documented absence across the surfaces actually checked and flagged as the strongest correction candidate on this record. Compare Supio at B, which names Litify, MyCase and CasePeer.

Cloud delivery is stated with a tenancy posture and no region anywhere, which is C. The deployment side is described more than most: the platform is presented as a closed, private environment contrasted explicitly with public AI tools, built on secure private cloud infrastructure with encrypted backups and continuous monitoring, and reached through a hosted application at an enterprise subdomain. That tells a buyer the shape of the delivery, and the closed-environment claim is doing real work in the vendor's own positioning. Residency is absent entirely. No cloud provider is named, no region or data center is identified, no residency option is offered or refused, and nothing distinguishes where medical records are stored from where model inference happens. That last gap matters on this product more than on most: it processes protected health information at volume, and the vendor markets HIPAA compliance without stating where the processing occurs or who operates the infrastructure. No on-premises or single-tenant option is described. The eighteen-page data policy is the document that would carry a processing-location statement, and it could not be opened by this index on the date shown. Verified 12 September 2026.

Nothing located beyond a generic phrase. Secure cloud infrastructure is stated and names no provider, no region and no residency commitment, and no single tenant or dedicated instance option is described. The firm level isolation the vendor does describe is a logical separation claim rather than a deployment or residency statement, and the two should not be conflated: isolated to your firm says nothing about which jurisdiction the data sits in. For a platform holding claimant protected health information at the scale of 200,000 cases annually, residency is a question a firm's own compliance review asks directly. Checked the home page, the working with Eve page, the press coverage and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026. Compare Supio at B, which states data centers in three named countries.

Badges appear on the site with no scope, no date and no report available, which is C. The security page carries an eight-item wall: SOC 2 Type II, HIPAA, GDPR, FedRAMP, FIPS 140-2, NIST 800-171, CSA and PCI. Not one is accompanied by an auditor, an observation period, a certificate number, a scope statement or a route to obtain a report, and there is no trust center. What lifts this above a pure badge wall is that a substantive artifact exists: an eighteen-page Data Privacy and Security Policy, published ungated as a PDF and referred to by the vendor as such. It could not be opened by this index and is named here rather than credited. Two problems belong on the record rather than in the grade. FedRAMP is an authorization status for cloud services sold to United States federal agencies, not a compliance posture a private vendor holds by assertion, and the badge carries nothing to establish which status is claimed. And ISO 27001 appears in a published vendor FAQ, listed among the standards met, while it is absent from the security page's own wall, so the estate does not agree with itself about what is held. Verified 12 September 2026.

Named certifications with an annual cadence stated, and no route to anything underneath them. Published: SOC 2 Type 2 certification, HIPAA compliance, AES-256 end to end encryption, secure cloud infrastructure, and the statement that policies are vetted annually by independent audits, which addresses currency in a way most records in this category do not. Held at B rather than A on the familiar three absences: no auditing firm is named, no examination period, scope or certificate date is published, and no trust center, security page or self serve documentation request route was located, so under the three tier test the artifact is absent rather than gated. One claim recorded and not credited: the vendor describes itself as the first legal AI to be SOC 2 Type 2 certified. That is a priority superlative rather than a security fact, it is not checkable from any published source, and it says nothing about the current scope or rigour of the examination. Calibration within this category: EvenUp reaches A on a Trust Center with a request route and a dated recertification; Eve and Supio both sit at B with claims and no route.

The vendor refers to its own models without identifying anything underneath them, which is C. The only supply-chain language located is possessive and unexplained: data is never used to train our models, the platform is a closed private environment unlike public AI tools, and hallucination is managed by combining information extraction with retrieval-augmented generation. Those describe an architecture and a technique. No model is named, no version is given, no third-party provider is identified, no hosting arrangement for inference is stated, and nothing commits to notifying a customer if any of it changes. There is no subprocessor list on any surface. The closed-environment framing is the interesting part and cuts both ways: it is offered as the reason a firm can trust the platform with privileged material, and it is offered without any statement of whose models sit inside the closed environment, so the buyer is asked to accept the boundary without being told what is behind it. On a product that sends medical records and case strategy to a model, that is the disclosure a firm's own client would most likely ask about. Verified 12 September 2026.

Nothing located. No foundation model provider, model family or version is named, nothing states whether third party models sit underneath the agent architecture, and no subprocessor list was found. The commitment that case data is never used to train shared models establishes that a distinction between shared and firm scoped models exists in the architecture without identifying what either is built on. For a platform processing protected health information across 200,000 cases annually, the identity of every processor in the chain is a question a firm's HIPAA business associate diligence asks directly and it cannot be answered from public material. Checked the home page, the working with Eve page, the press coverage of both 2026 launches and the site navigation on 29 Aug 2026.

No pricing information is published at any level, including the unit of charge, which is the D band. There is no pricing page in the navigation and none was located anywhere on the estate. No plan or tier name, no rate, no band, no minimum, no term, and no statement of whether the platform is licensed per seat, per firm, per matter or per page of records processed. The only commercial route published is a demonstration booking, and the sole contact channel is a sales address and a telephone number. Under R10's closing discipline a page that only invites a sales conversation is an absence and belongs in this note alone, so no VendorPricing row is written for this record. One document is named rather than credited, because it is the obvious route by which this row would move: a Fulfillment Policy is published as an ungated PDF and linked in the site footer, and a fulfillment policy commonly carries billing cadence, refund and cancellation terms, any of which would lift this axis off the floor and,, make a pricing row owed. This index's fetcher would not open it on the date shown. Verified 12 September 2026.

No pricing published at any level. No price, no range, no unit of charge, and no indication of whether the model is per seat, per case, per matter or per firm, which matters because the product is positioned as an operational platform rather than a per document tool and the pricing unit would signal which. Independent material notes that the target segment is small to medium plaintiff firms without any published attorney count, revenue band or case volume threshold defining it, so a firm cannot self assess fit either. The contingency fee point recorded on EvenUp and Supio applies equally: case costs are advanced against a claimant's recovery, so undisclosed pricing is undisclosed cost to an injured person. Checked the home page, the pricing navigation, the working with Eve page and independent review material on 29 Aug 2026.

Coverage is described with real substance and the boundaries are left open, which is B. The segment is stated with unusual precision and consistency: plaintiff firms only, and specifically those handling larger and more complex matters, with the vendor separately stating that it serves plaintiff firms of every size from solo through large. Practice coverage is enumerated across five pages of its own, personal injury, nursing home litigation, medical malpractice, trucking accident litigation and traumatic brain injury, and the depth behind each is evidenced in the customers' own vocabulary rather than asserted, with named attorneys describing medication and treatment administration records, activities of daily living and nursing home flow sheets. The vendor's association partnerships across eight state trial-lawyer bodies corroborate the segment even though they are not deployment evidence. What is left open holds it off A. No jurisdictional limit is stated anywhere, against a claim that liability and statutes can be researched across all fifty states; nothing states which matter types or claim values the platform is not suitable for; and defence-side work is excluded by positioning without ever being addressed as a boundary. Verified 12 September 2026.

Lifecycle coverage is the broadest in this category and the practice boundary is stated honestly. Coverage runs intake through resolution rather than centering on one document type: intake and case evaluation, medical overviews and chronologies, demand letters, complaints, and both propounding and responding to discovery, which is wider than either competitor built so far and includes the litigation phase rather than stopping at the demand. Practice areas named are personal injury as the primary vertical with medical malpractice, employment and general litigation, and independent review confirms no evidence of family, criminal, intellectual property or transactional work, so the scope claim holds. Held at B rather than A because the firm segment is asserted without definition, with independent material noting that the small to medium target is stated with no attorney count, revenue band or case volume threshold, and because nothing characterizes depth: no record types or formats handled, no jurisdictional scope for the drafting, and no indication of whether discovery coverage extends across state and federal practice.