Centari vs Noetica AI: how they compare in 2026
Centari and Noetica AI both turn transaction documents into data that deal lawyers use to find precedents and benchmark negotiated terms. Centari builds that database from a firm's own deals, while Noetica, owned by Thomson Reuters since February 2026, indexes more than 3 million public and private transactions into a market dataset. Centari sits in the top two bands on ten of fifteen axes and Noetica on five of fifteen. Centari's lead is in how a firm checks the output. Every extracted value cites its source language, a Tasks view tracks which data points a person has verified, and access can be set down to the data point with ethical wall integration. It also states SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 and names OpenAI and Anthropic as its AI providers. Noetica publishes no oversight position, certification or integration detail. Its counterweight is the market itself: benchmarks against other parties' deals rather than only the firm's own, run on proprietary models with no third party AI provider in a single tenant architecture.
At a glance
All 15 axes, side by side
The same grid applied to every vendor in the index, graded from public sources. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
Centari sells the database its AI builds. The Deal Reasoning Engine reads a firm's credit agreements, limited partnership agreements and M&A closing sets and turns them into structured, citation-backed data points, and the platform overview describes multi-stage reasoning that resolves defined terms, traces cross-references and evaluates conditional logic in sequence rather than skimming a document as flat text. Everything else a firm buys runs on that output: precedent search, market benchmarking, Views dashboards, Projects grids and the Centari Intelligence sidebar. The MCP server and Microsoft Copilot integration let a firm's other AI tools query the same data, and they belong to the integration picture rather than to what Centari itself generates. Remove the models and there is nothing in the database to search or chart. Verified 20 September 2026.
The models are the product. Noetica's proprietary AI builds the dataset itself, automatically indexing terms from public and private deal documents with no human tagging, and every feature a buyer uses sits on that output: natural-language term search, qualitative and quantitative benchmarking against market comparables, term trends and AI term ratings for credit deals. Without the models there is no dataset to query. Verified 22 September 2026.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
Every extracted value comes back with a citation, and nothing about accuracy is measured. The platform overview says each data point traces to its source language and connects to related provisions across the deal documents, with a verification view for checking it, and the 24 August 2026 release post says the Centari Intelligence sidebar answers with citations to the source language that a partner can open in one click. The method behind the extraction is described rather than asserted: defined terms resolved, cross-references traced, conditional logic evaluated in sequence. What a buyer cannot weigh is performance. The site claims attorney-level precision and unmatched accuracy with no test set, no score and no failure mode named, so the only check on a given field is the firm's own reviewer. The citations run to the firm's own agreements rather than to primary law. Verified 20 September 2026.
Accuracy is asserted rather than measured. The product pages promise unmatched accuracy and accurate answers, and term search surfaces precedents that addressed similar structures, but nothing describes how a benchmark or rating ties back to the underlying deal documents, whether a user can open the source agreement behind a figure, or how often extraction is wrong. The Terms of Service say information on the service is not guaranteed to be correct, complete or up to date. Verified 22 September 2026.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
Centari is built around people checking what the AI extracts, and it gives a firm a way to track that checking. The 24 August 2026 release post describes the product as designed for human in the loop verification and introduces Tasks, which gathers every open verification step across Databases and Projects so an owner can assign reviewers and see which data points a person has checked. The platform overview describes a verification view beside each extraction. Projects are kept apart from the governed record: nothing in a Project writes back to a Database. What is not published is where the system itself draws a line. Nothing says when extraction stops or flags low confidence, and nothing says what unverified output must not be used for, so those rules are left to each firm. Verified 20 September 2026.
Checked the home page, the solution and customer pages, the About page, the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No human oversight position is published: nothing describes who reviews the AI's extraction of terms into the dataset, how a lawyer checks a benchmark or rating before relying on it, or what the output may not be used for. Verified 22 September 2026.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
Centari names large law firm customers and puts senior people on the record, but publishes no measured result. The homepage, platform overview and For Law page carry attributed endorsements from Fried Frank (Global Head of Innovation and Knowledge), Willkie (Counsel, Asset Management), Ropes & Gray (Counsel), Wilson Sonsini (Senior Manager of KM) and Gilbert + Tobin (Partner, Corporate Advisory), and from Sentinel Global's general counsel on the fund side. The blog lists a Gilbert + Tobin case study dated 30 April 2026 describing a firm wide M&A deployment, and announcements of the Fried Frank and Ropes & Gray adoptions. No figure for time saved, accuracy or outcomes is published. The case study links on the site did not open a readable page on 20 September 2026, so the detail of the Gilbert + Tobin deployment could not be read. What is on the record is endorsement by named senior users, not a measured result. Verified 20 September 2026.
Named customers, and figures without them. Lawyers at Foley & Lardner, Latham & Watkins, Skadden and Ropes & Gray are quoted by name and title. The figures, a 95 per cent reduction in transactional research time and attorney engagement on 85 per cent of business days, are not attributed to any customer, dated or explained. The company's quarterly capital markets reports have been cited by Bloomberg and CNBC, which shows the dataset in use but not a customer outcome. Verified 22 September 2026.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
The commitments about client material are specific, and they live on a security page rather than in a contract. The security page states that customer data is siloed and never commingled, with single tenant deployments available, that it is never used to train or fine tune the underlying models, that it is encrypted in transit and at rest with bring your own key supported, and that access can be controlled down to the data point with SSO and ethical wall integration. The Terms of Use dated 16 September 2025 say nothing about customer content and state that they sit alongside any other agreement; that other agreement is not published, so a buyer cannot read any of these promises as a term before signing. Nothing addresses privilege or work product in the deal documents a firm uploads, how long they are held, or what OpenAI and Anthropic, named as AI providers in the Trust Center, may retain. For a product that ingests a firm's whole deal history, that last gap is the one a general counsel will raise first. Verified 20 September 2026.
Strong commitments in marketing, none in the published terms. The knowledge management page promises true data isolation through a single-tenant architecture, no third-party providers and no shared models, and says a firm's private deals stay private, and firms can run the analytics over their own deal library. The published Terms of Service are a user-level agreement that says nothing about confidentiality, training or privilege and defers to an organisation agreement that is not published. The market dataset is described as spanning public and private transactions without saying where the private transactions come from. Verified 22 September 2026.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
Section 4 of the Terms of Use, dated 16 September 2025, is direct about what Centari is not. It states that the company is not a law firm, attorney, staffing firm or lawyer referral service, that nothing on the service is legal advice, that no attorney-client relationship arises, and that employees who are licensed attorneys are not practising law in that capacity. The audience is professional throughout: transactional practices, knowledge teams, in-house legal and investment funds. The other half of the question is untouched. Nothing addresses how a supervising lawyer should treat extracted terms that feed advice, negotiation positions or the External Views dashboards a firm shares with its own clients, and no jurisdiction limits are stated. Verified 20 September 2026.
A clear disclaimer in the user terms. The Terms of Service state that Noetica is not a law firm or attorney, cannot perform services performed by an attorney and is no substitute for one, that information on the service is not legal advice and is not guaranteed to be correct or current, that no attorney-client relationship or privilege is created, and that anyone needing legal advice should consult a licensed attorney. Nothing addresses the supervising lawyer's own duties when relying on market data in advice to a client, and no ethics guidance is named. Verified 22 September 2026.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
What Centari publishes is how a firm checks the AI's work, not how Centari builds and controls it. Calibration of each firm's taxonomy by domain experts is described on the homepage and the For Law page, an account team of attorneys and engineers runs it, and the 24 August 2026 release post describes the Tasks verification workflow. That tooling helps a firm govern its own use; it says nothing about how Centari tests and controls its models. No accountable owner inside the company is named, nothing describes what is tested before a release ships, no evaluation result is published, and nothing addresses whether extraction quality is uneven across document types, drafting styles, jurisdictions or languages. Checked the homepage, platform overview, For Law, security and about pages, the blog and the Trust Center on 20 September 2026. Verified 20 September 2026.
Checked the home page, the solution and customer pages, the About page, the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. No AI governance framework, accountable owner, testing before release or bias disclosure was located, including any statement that the parent's AI principles apply to this product. Verified 22 September 2026.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
The controls protecting the data are published; what happens to a firm's documents afterwards is not. The security page states encryption in transit and at rest with bring your own key, siloed data with single tenant options, access control down to the data point, SSO and regular penetration testing, and the Trust Center lists security controls including a record of incidents and a subprocessor list. No retention period for uploaded deal documents or for questions put to the product is published, no deletion commitment applies on termination, and no incident notification timeline was located. The Privacy Policy dated 16 September 2025 covers personal information collected through the website and services rather than the contracts a firm loads, and no customer agreement or data processing addendum is published. Verified 20 September 2026.
A generic privacy policy and a tenancy claim. The Privacy Policy covers personal information of users of the websites and services, with standard security language and no retention period, and the Terms of Service tell users to keep their own copies of content they post. The knowledge management page's single-tenant, no-third-party claim is the only statement about what happens to deal documents. No subprocessor list, retention or deletion commitment, or incident practice is published. Verified 22 September 2026.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
What Centari refuses is published in full; what it stands behind is not. The Terms of Use dated 16 September 2025 provide the service as is and disclaim warranties of accuracy, reliability and fitness (section 15), cap total liability at the greater of fees paid in the prior six months or one hundred US dollars (section 16), and require the customer to indemnify Centari (section 17). No indemnity runs the other way, no warranty attaches to extracted output, and no insurance position appears. The Terms state that they sit alongside any other agreement, and that agreement, where an enterprise buyer's real allocation of loss would sit, is not published, so the only readable position is the one that allocates the risk of a wrong extraction to the firm. Verified 20 September 2026.
Only standard clauses, and no remedy for output. The Terms of Service provide the service and its content as is, disclaim all warranties, and cap liability at the greater of the fees the user's organisation paid for that user's access in the prior 12 months or a small fixed sum; no indemnity from Noetica appears. The organisation agreement, which the terms say prevails and governs disputes, is not published. Verified 22 September 2026.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
The connections are named and none of them is documented. The platform overview says Centari's MCP Server makes a firm's deal intelligence available to the AI tools it already uses, the blog lists a 16 June 2026 announcement of that server and a one-click Microsoft Copilot integration, and the security page names SSO and ethical wall integration. There is no integrations page, no developer documentation and no API reference, and the June announcement does not open a readable page. Nothing states how deal documents get from a document management system such as iManage or NetDocuments into Centari, which is the step a firm has to plan and staff, or what the Copilot integration exposes to a user's assistant. Projects grids are described as exportable. Verified 20 September 2026.
Checked the home page, the solution and customer pages and the About page on 22 September 2026. The knowledge management page mentions native integrations and integrating market intelligence into a firm's knowledge systems, but no integration is named or described. Verified 22 September 2026.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
The tenancy model is stated and the geography is not. The security page says customer data is siloed and never commingled, that single tenant deployments are available, that bring your own key encryption is supported, and that regional hosting and processing are available for customers around the world. No region is named, nothing says which arrangement or tier carries single tenancy, and nothing separates where the database sits from where OpenAI and Anthropic process the text of a firm's agreements. A firm with a UK or EU residency requirement would have to establish all of that in a sales conversation. Verified 20 September 2026.
Tenancy is stated; location is not. The knowledge management page describes a single-tenant architecture, and the Thomson Reuters acquisition announcement of February 2026 describes secure, single-tenant deployments. No hosting provider, region, residency option or processing location is published. Verified 22 September 2026.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
Centari states SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 certification and regular third party penetration testing on its homepage and security page, and links a Trust Center hosted by Sprinto. Only part of the Trust Center could be read on 20 September 2026. The part that could be read shows a compliance section with two entries marked compliant, a list of controls and a subprocessor list. It names no auditor, report period or scope, and no route to obtain the reports, so the certifications stand as the vendor's statement until a buyer sees the reports. Verified 20 September 2026.
Checked the home page, the solution and customer pages, the About page, the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. The product is described as highly secure with complete security assurance, but no independent certification or audit is named and no trust centre is published. Verified 22 September 2026.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
The providers are named; the models are not. Centari's Trust Center carries a subprocessor list naming OpenAI and Anthropic as AI providers and Google as a cloud provider. Only part of that list could be read on 20 September 2026, so it may name others. The marketing pages refer to 'our underlying AI models' and to a patent pending Deal Reasoning Engine without identifying either: no model, no version, and nothing about where the AI providers run. No commitment to tell customers when the models behind their extractions change was located on the security page, the platform overview or the Trust Center, which matters here because a firm's benchmarks are built on extractions made by whatever model was running at the time. Verified 20 September 2026.
An architecture statement without detail. The company describes its AI as proprietary and purpose-built, and the knowledge management page states there are no third-party providers and no shared models, within a single-tenant architecture. The models themselves are not described or named, and no commitment to notify customers of model changes is published. Verified 22 September 2026.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
Nothing about price is published, including the unit of charge. Checked the homepage, the full navigation and footer, the platform overview, the For Law and For Finance pages, the security and about pages, the Terms of Use and the blog on 20 September 2026: there is no pricing page, no tier names, no unit, no trial and no figure anywhere. Every route offered is a demo request. Section 13 of the Terms of Use reserves the right to charge fees for the services without stating what they are. Verified 20 September 2026.
Checked the home page, the solution and customer pages and the About page on 22 September 2026. No price, tier or unit of charge is published; every route leads to a demo request. Verified 22 September 2026.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
Who the product is built for is set out clearly; where it stops is not. The For Law page addresses transactional practices and names partners, knowledge management, associates and business development as its users, and the For Finance page addresses investment funds across legal, investor relations, finance and compliance. Document types are named rather than implied: credit agreements, limited partnership agreements and M&A closing sets, with the work described as high stakes M&A, fund formation and financings. The demo form offers law firm, in-house legal, financial services and government. Nothing states what falls outside, such as litigation material, agreements in other languages, or deal types for which the firm's taxonomy has not been calibrated, and calibration is how every deployment starts. Verified 20 September 2026.
The buyers and the work are clear: transactional attorneys in capital markets, finance and M&A, law firm knowledge management and innovation teams, and credit and investment professionals, across more than 60 transaction types including bank financing, real estate and executive compensation. What the dataset does not cover, by jurisdiction, deal size or document type, is not stated. Verified 22 September 2026.
The 12 legal signals, side by side
Recorded rather than graded. These are the questions a practitioner has to answer before a tool touches a client matter, and the answers are taken from public material only.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
The security page and homepage state that customer data is never used to train or fine-tune Centari's models. No published agreement carries the commitment: the Terms of Use (16 September 2025) are silent on customer content and supplement an unpublished customer agreement.
The published Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, read on 22 September 2026, do not address whether customer deal documents are used to train models in either direction. The terms defer to an organization agreement that is not published. The knowledge management page says there are no shared models, without using the word training.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Checked the security page, the platform overview, the Terms of Use, the Privacy Policy, the 24 August 2026 release post and the Trust Center on 20 September 2026. No retention period is stated for uploaded deal documents, for questions put to the Intelligence sidebar or for extracted output, and no deletion commitment applies on termination; the security page says only that a customer's data is always under its control.
Checked the Terms of Service, the Privacy Policy and the product pages on 22 September 2026. No retention period, deletion commitment or customer control over how long queries, results or uploaded deal documents are kept is published.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The security page claims access control down to the data point, SSO and ethical wall integration, and siloed customer data. No published material describes which systems the wall integration reads from or how access is enforced at query time.
Checked the product pages, the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. The company describes isolation between customers through single tenancy, but nothing addresses walls or permissions between matters, clients or users within a firm, which matters where a firm runs analytics over its own private deal library.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The Privacy Policy (16 September 2025) permits disclosure of information to comply with legal process and says nothing about notifying the customer. It covers personal information; no published term addresses requests for customer deal documents, and the Terms of Use are silent on the point.
The Privacy Policy reserves the right to access, preserve and disclose information to comply with law enforcement requests and legal process, such as a court order or subpoena. No commitment or reservation regarding notice to the customer is located in the published documents.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Checked the homepage, the platform overview, the For Law page and the security page on 20 September 2026. Centari works over the deal documents a firm loads and its benchmarks are drawn from that material; no external legal corpus is described, so provenance here is the firm's own.
Checked the home page, the solution pages and the About page on 22 September 2026. The dataset is described as terms from more than 3 million public and private transactions, but no source is named: nothing says whether public deals come from regulatory filings, how private transactions enter the market dataset, or under what license.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Checked the homepage, the platform overview, the For Law page and the 24 August 2026 release post on 20 September 2026. Centari cites clauses in the firm's own agreements rather than legal authority, so the question of subsequent history does not arise for this product and nothing addresses it.
Checked the home page and the solution pages on 22 September 2026. The product benchmarks deal terms rather than citing legal authority, and nothing addresses checking authority for subsequent history.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Checked the homepage, the platform overview, the For Law page, the security page, the 24 August 2026 release post and the Trust Center on 20 September 2026. Nothing describes what happens when the engine cannot find a data point or the Intelligence sidebar cannot answer, and no confidence or grounding score is exposed. Verification runs through Tasks, which routes finished output to a human reviewer rather than describing any point at which the system declines to answer.
Checked the home page and the solution pages on 22 September 2026. Benchmarks show a market prevalence score, but no confidence indicator for the AI's extraction of a term, and no path in which the system declines when comparables are too few, is described.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 20 September 2026 on the product name Centari and the corporate name Centari, Inc. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product, and the exposure is structurally lower than for a research tool: Centari cites a firm's own agreements and is sold for transactional work rather than for court filings.
Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin on 22 September 2026 for Noetica, and no recorded case was returned. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming the product was located. This is a statement about the public record rather than a finding about the product.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Checked the homepage, the platform overview, the For Law page, the security and about pages, the Terms of Use and the blog on 20 September 2026. Section 4 of the Terms states that Centari is not a law firm and gives no legal advice, but no material engages with ABA Formal Opinion 512, a state bar opinion or any other named ethics guidance on the use of AI.
The Terms of Service state that Noetica is not a law firm, that information on the service is not legal advice, that no attorney-client relationship or privilege is created, and that users needing legal advice should consult a licensed attorney. No bar or ethics opinion is named.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The For Law page says associates find on-point precedent in seconds to bring to drafts and redlines, and the platform page contrasts the engine with manual work, which is work billed to clients on live deals. Much of the product also serves pitch and knowledge work that bills no client. No material addresses fee or disclosure treatment.
The knowledge management page claims the product cuts transactional research time by more than 95 percent on average, allowing the time to be reallocated to billable hours and other projects. Nothing addresses how research done with the product is billed or disclosed to the firm's clients.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
Centari's Trust Center carries a subprocessor list that names OpenAI and Anthropic as AI providers and Google as a cloud provider. Only part of the list could be read on 20 September 2026, so it may name others. No material written for a firm to pass to its own clients, such as an AI use summary or a response to outside counsel guidelines, was located.
No subprocessor or model provider list was located on the product pages, the Terms of Service or the Privacy Policy on 22 September 2026. What a firm can forward to a client is the marketing statement of single tenancy with no third-party providers and no shared models.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Every extracted data point cites its source language, and Tasks records which data has been verified by a human reviewer. The product serves transactional work and nothing addresses court disclosure or records which model produced an output.
Checked the product pages and the Terms of Service on 22 September 2026. No record of AI involvement in a benchmark or analysis, export of that record or disclosure guidance is described.
The questions both sides leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favor either vendor. Take these into both conversations and ask each side the same question.
- Commercial Transparency
- Prompt and Output Retention
- Primary Law Corpus Provenance
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Which one fits
Choose Centari if
- You want every data point traceable and checked. Centari cites the source language behind each extracted value, opens it in one click, and its Tasks view collects every open verification step across databases and projects so an owner can assign reviewers and see what a person has checked.
- You need walls and control over who sees which deals. Centari states siloed customer data with single tenant deployments available, bring your own key encryption, access control down to the data point, and SSO with ethical wall integration.
- You want the database built to your own taxonomy by lawyers. Centari's account team of attorneys and engineers calibrates each deployment for credit agreements, limited partnership agreements and M&A closing sets, and names Fried Frank, Ropes & Gray and Gilbert + Tobin among its customers.
Choose Noetica AI if
- You want to benchmark against the market, not only your own deals. Noetica indexes more than 1.5 billion terms from over 3 million public and private transactions across more than 60 transaction types, and lets you filter comparables by opposing counsel, market cap and credit rating.
- You want no third party AI provider touching your deals. Noetica describes proprietary models with no third party providers and no shared models, in a single tenant architecture, and lets a firm run the same analytics over its own private deal library.
- You work in credit or capital markets. Noetica offers AI term ratings for assessing credit deal risk, tracks how terms move over time, and names lawyers at Latham & Watkins, Skadden, Ropes & Gray and Foley & Lardner among its users.
In summary
Centari
Centari, from Centari, Inc. of New York, is a deal intelligence platform for transactional law firms and investment funds. Its Deal Reasoning Engine turns credit agreements, limited partnership agreements and M&A closing sets into a citation backed database built to each firm's own taxonomy, used to find precedent clauses, benchmark terms and prepare pitches. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on ten of fifteen capability axes, with an A on AI centrality. It states SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001, names OpenAI and Anthropic as AI providers, and counts Fried Frank and Ropes & Gray among its customers. As of 20 September 2026 the index located no published price, retention period or customer agreement.
Noetica AI
Noetica AI, founded in New York in 2022 and acquired by Thomson Reuters in February 2026, is a market intelligence platform for deal professionals that indexes more than 1.5 billion terms from over 3 million public and private transactions across debt finance, capital markets, securities and M&A. Lawyers use it to benchmark their own deals against market comparables and search precedents by concept, and investment teams use AI term ratings for credit risk. The AI Legal Index grades it in the top two bands on five of fifteen capability axes, with an A on AI centrality. It describes proprietary models with no third party providers. As of 22 September 2026 the index located no oversight position, security certification, integration detail or price.
Questions buyers ask
Centari vs Noetica: which is better for deal term benchmarking?
On published evidence Centari sits in the top two bands on ten of fifteen AI Legal Index capability axes and Noetica on five of fifteen, mostly because Centari publishes how its output is verified, secured and walled. They answer different questions: Centari benchmarks within a firm's own deal history, while Noetica benchmarks against a market dataset of millions of transactions. A firm wanting outside comparables has more of that in Noetica.
Who owns Noetica AI?
Thomson Reuters acquired Noetica in February 2026 and has said it intends to integrate the platform into CoCounsel. Noetica was founded in New York in 2022 and still publishes under its own name, and its published terms defer to an organization agreement that is not published. Centari is a venture backed Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does Centari train AI on firm deal documents?
Centari's security page and home page state that customer data is never used to train or fine tune its underlying AI models, and that customer data is siloed with single tenant deployments available. The commitment is not in its published terms, which defer to an unpublished customer agreement. Noetica's published terms do not address training, and its product page says it uses no shared models. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which AI models do Centari and Noetica use?
Centari's trust center names OpenAI and Anthropic as AI providers and Google as a cloud provider, without naming models or versions. Noetica describes its AI as proprietary and purpose built, with no third party providers and no shared models, but does not describe or name the models. Neither commits to telling customers when the models behind their data change. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What do Centari and Noetica both leave unpublished?
The price, the contract and the accuracy. Neither publishes a price or unit of charge, and neither publishes the customer agreement its terms defer to. Neither measures how often its extraction is wrong, states how long it keeps uploaded deal documents, or says what happens when the engine cannot find a term. Neither names bar guidance on AI. Graded by AI Legal Index against 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals, including privilege handling and citation accuracy, from each vendor's own published materials, verified September 25, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Three readings to weigh. Both vendors keep their customer agreement unpublished: their published terms defer to an enterprise agreement, so neither page can state what either stands behind for a wrong extraction beyond a disclaimer and a cap. Noetica's market dataset includes private transactions and does not say where they come from. Centari's commitment not to train on customer data sits on its security page, not in a published term. Centari was verified on 20 September 2026 and Noetica AI on 22 September 2026. Neither vendor reviewed this page.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything above comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.