CUBE vs Vixio: how they compare in 2026

C
CUBE profile
V
Vixio profile
Last verifiedOctober 13, 2026

CUBE and Vixio both sell regulatory intelligence to banks and other regulated firms, and they split on how much of the work the platform does. CUBE pairs 250 regulatory experts with proprietary AI that classifies and maps publications from more than 10,000 issuing bodies. Agentic coworkers inside RegPlatform then triage change, answer questions with sources, rewrite controls and track enforcement. Vixio's corpus is analyst made, written and validated by domain specialists before publication. Its assistant retrieves over that material in a closed box that never touches the open web, citing every claim back to the source text or the analyst report behind it. Vixio is also clearer about what it is not. Its terms state that the materials are not a definitive statement of the law and do not constitute legal advice, and its FAQ answers no when asked whether the assistant replaces a legal team. CUBE carries a similar disclaimer only in its Intel terms, and goes further into the firm itself, mapping obligations to its controls and benchmarking them against peers.

At a glance

Category
CUBERegulatory & Compliance Counsel
VixioRegulatory & Compliance Counsel
Founded
CUBENot published
Vixio2006
Headquarters
CUBELondon, United Kingdom
VixioLondon, United Kingdom
Last verified
CUBEOct 13, 2026
VixioSep 1, 2026

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.

CUBE
BB on AI CentralityThe models are the engine of a core capability, layered on a product that would still function without them as a document or workflow system.

CUBE's regulatory content would stand without the models. Its 250 regulatory experts review and curate it, and Powered By licenses that content to other platforms on its own. The models do the processing at scale. Proprietary AI trained only on regulatory content classifies, extracts, maps and links publications from more than 10,000 issuing bodies into about 10 million structured obligations. Inside RegPlatform, agentic coworkers triage change for a firm, answer questions in natural language, rewrite and generate controls, and analyze enforcement actions.

Vixio
CC on AI CentralityArtificial intelligence is present but peripheral: a feature layer on a product whose value stands without it.

The models sit on top of a twenty year content business rather than making it up, and Vixio says so, describing its offering as expert led data combined with AI tools and counting more than twenty specialist analysts among its assets. The content is written and validated by analysts: people validate and enrich high value updates before publication, and the regulatory intelligence graph holds more than 90,000 pieces of verified content. VIQ is a retrieval and drafting assistant over that material, described as a flagship rather than a foundation. Remove the models and the business that existed from 2006 remains saleable, with jurisdiction reports, analysis, an obligations library, horizon scanning and the task and audit workflow intact. Here the content is made by people and the AI queries it, rather than machine learning classifying and enriching the content itself.

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.

CUBE
BB on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureGrounding is real and documented, with linked primary sources and a described retrieval method, short of published accuracy figures an outsider can test.

Every coworker works from CUBE's own curated regulatory intelligence rather than the open web, and CUBE describes the output as sourced and auditable. The Analysis Coworker returns structured answers with their sources across applicable updates and the laws, rules and regulations in RegBook, and keeps the research record in the platform. Content is versioned, and each obligation keeps its lineage back to the regulatory text. No accuracy rate for classification, obligation extraction or coworker answers is published, and no test set or benchmark sits behind the AI.

Vixio
BB on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureGrounding is real and documented, with linked primary sources and a described retrieval method, short of published accuracy figures an outsider can test.

Grounding is real, documented and enforced by the design, and no figure is attached to it. VIQ is described as working in a closed environment over Vixio's own analyst verified data and never the open web, drawing on more than 6,200 curated sources and 20,000 regulatory documents. Every claim carries a direct citation to the original source text or the Vixio analyst report behind it, with links into deeper analysis, which the company frames as full explainability to a regulator. The retrieval method is described: a regulatory intelligence graph that connects content by intent rather than keyword. No accuracy rate, benchmark, test set or error analysis is published. The page heading claims grounded research with zero hallucinations, while the body text says the design minimizes and reduces hallucination risk, the more defensible of the two claims.

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.

CUBE
BB on Autonomy and Oversight ModelA written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer, with real review surfaces, short of the full control structure: commonly the threshold at which the system stops or what happens after it is wrong.

The coworkers work inside RegPlatform beside compliance and risk teams, surfacing what is relevant and drafting the next step, and CUBE calls their output explainable. The Priorities Coworker ranks developments by certainty and applicability and keeps a full audit trail of its assessment decisions. Regulatory Inventory logs the reasoning when it maps a change to entities, jurisdictions and business lines, and workflow carries tasks, ownership and approvals through each stage. Intel pairs the AI with review by CUBE's regulatory experts. What a coworker may do without a person approving it, and what happens after a wrong assessment, are not described.

Vixio
BB on Autonomy and Oversight ModelA written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer, with real review surfaces, short of the full control structure: commonly the threshold at which the system stops or what happens after it is wrong.

Three separate review mechanisms are published, and the control structure around them is incomplete. First, review of the content before it reaches a user: human in the loop is a named design pillar, with AI scanning about 8,000 daily sources and analysts validating and enriching high value updates before publication. Second, review of output at the point of use: the product carries a standing notice that VIQ uses AI across Vixio's own data only and that critical information should always be checked against official sources, and citations make that check possible. Third, behavior at the edge of coverage, covered under refusal. The rest is missing. Analyst validation applies to high value updates without defining them, so validation coverage is unknown. No confidence threshold is described for VIQ, and nothing says what happens after a wrong answer or how a correction reaches other users who relied on it.

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.

CUBE
CC on Operational and Outcome EvidenceCustomer logos and unattributed testimonials stand in for evidence, or results are quoted with no basis stated.

CUBE says it serves many of the world's largest financial institutions, with operations across Europe, the United States, Canada, Asia and Australia. It puts its scale at about 10 million data points processed a year, 250 regulatory experts and around 1,000 staff in 10 offices. No customer is named. The one outcome figure comes from early customer testing of the Priorities Coworker, which cut noise by 80 to 90 percent, with no customer, date or method attached. IBM embedded CUBE's regulatory intelligence in a Regulatory Horizon Scanning capability for watsonx.governance, announced in September 2026, as a partnership with no deployment figures.

Vixio
BB on Operational and Outcome EvidenceReal deployment evidence with substance, short of full attribution or measurement: a named customer without figures, or figures without the named customer.

Two named customers, two named individuals with senior titles, and figures that describe the customer rather than the change. Inpay is named with a quote from Camila Witt, Chief Risk and Compliance Officer, describing daily use as part of the firm's risk management, alongside figures of more than 45 countries represented and a 99.6 percent transaction success rate. Bally's Corporation is named with a quote from Christine Scicluna, International Legal Director of Regulatory and Governance, alongside 17,700 slot machines and 20 casinos across the US and UK. Both link to full case studies. The limitation is precise: those numbers size the customer's business, not what using Vixio changed, and the testimony itself is qualitative. The only outcome figure located anywhere is a marketing claim that research time is cut by 90 percent, which carries no source or method. Neither case study was opened, and no date is published on either.

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.

CUBE
CC on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureConfidentiality is asserted in general terms, or the commitment lives only in a sales conversation and cannot be read in advance.

The Global Terms and Conditions for CUBE Services, January 2026, leave customer data owned by the customer and license CUBE to use and store it only as far as needed to perform the agreement. Customer data counts as the customer's confidential information. Clause 10.3 limits a compelled disclosure to what a court or regulator orders, with written notice first where CUBE is able to give it. The data security exhibit commits CUBE to a written information security program aligned with a recognized standard. No term addresses privilege, work product or segregation between customers, and the license lets CUBE keep customer data after the agreement ends.

Vixio
CC on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureConfidentiality is asserted in general terms, or the commitment lives only in a sales conversation and cannot be read in advance.

Almost nothing addresses what happens to customer content, and one published fact explains why. Clause 14 of the terms says Vixio is the controller of personal data provided to it, not a processor acting on customer instructions, because it decides what data is required, how it is used and how long it is kept. That position is why no data processing agreement exists. Beyond it, there is no training position on VIQ queries, no retention or deletion commitment for customer content, no separation description and no security page. The one data use term located is narrow: clause 6.3 covers only information submitted to the self assessment tool, which Vixio may use in perpetuity on an anonymous basis to improve its business and services. The privacy policy was not opened and may say more.

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.

CUBE
CC on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA boilerplate disclaimer sits in the terms while the marketing describes the product in advice terms, or the intended audience is left ambiguous.

Clause 12.1.4 of the Intel subscription terms says the services are not financial, tax, accounting, legal, compliance or other professional advice, and CUBE disclaims damages from decisions made in reliance on them. The Global Terms behind RegPlatform exclude liability for decisions a customer makes on the services and content, without the same statement. The website terms call site content general information rather than advice. CUBE's own pitch is helping teams track, interpret and act on regulatory change, while its home page line is that CUBE brings the insights and the customer decides. Nothing addresses the supervision or competence of the lawyers and compliance staff relying on the output, and no jurisdiction limit is named.

Vixio
AA on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureThe vendor states plainly what the product is and is not, who may use it, and how it supports a lawyer’s competence and supervision duties. Jurisdiction limits are named and any consumer facing surface carries a clear disclosure.

The professional responsibility position is stated in three places that support each other. In the agreement, clause 11 says commentary and materials are not meant to be advice to rely on, are not a definitive or complete statement of the law, and are not legal or expert advice or recommendations. Clause 6.2 says the same of self assessment reports, which are for information only. In the product, VIQ carries a standing notice that it uses AI across Vixio's own data only and that critical information should always be checked against official sources, and citations to sources make that instruction workable. The published FAQ asks directly whether VIQ replaces a legal team or compliance officers and answers no: it is built to support them, handling research, summaries and drafting so experts can focus on high stakes judgment. Jurisdiction limits are named: clause 10.2 warrants nothing about whether the materials are permitted under laws outside the UK and puts that check on the user. The terms were last updated in October 2023, before VIQ, so the statements specific to AI rest on the product page and FAQ rather than the contract.

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.

CUBE
DD on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureNo governance position published for a system whose output affects legal outcomes.

The AI is described as proprietary, trained only on regulatory content and native to the product rather than added on, with coworker output explainable, sourced and auditable. No AI policy, set of principles, framework, accountable owner or testing before release is published, and nothing covers uneven output across jurisdictions, languages or firm types. CUBE's intelligence feeds IBM's watsonx.governance, a tool enterprises use to govern their own AI, which says nothing about how CUBE governs its models.

Vixio
DD on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureNo governance position published for a system whose output affects legal outcomes.

Nothing published addresses governance of Vixio's own AI, which contrasts with what the company publishes on the subject. Vixio has published research, The State of AI Trust in Regulatory Compliance 2026, and a press release reporting that 65 percent of compliance leaders distrust generic AI for regulatory decisions, and markets VIQ as designed to satisfy strict internal AI governance committees. All of that concerns the market's expectations and how VIQ meets a buyer's, not Vixio's own framework. No responsible AI page, AI policy, ethics statement, governance committee, named accountable owner, testing regime before release or bias evaluation is published. The site navigation and full footer were read; the legal set covers terms, privacy, cookies, a disclaimer, anti slavery and accessibility. The design commitments that do exist, closed grounding, analyst validation and citation tracing, are product properties covered under accuracy and oversight.

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.

CUBE
BB on AI Safety and Data StewardshipSubstantive published policy covering most of the ground, short of the full set: commonly no named subprocessor list or no stated incident practice.

The privacy exhibit, March 2026, has CUBE process personal data only as the agreement requires or on written instruction, amend, transfer or delete it on request, and keep it confidential. Either party reports a security breach within 72 hours, and CUBE tells no third party about a breach without the customer's consent unless the law requires it. An annex lists the material subprocessors, and the customer gets five days to object to a new one. Under the Global Terms, CUBE backs up customer data daily and keeps only the latest copy, and at the end of the agreement it deletes or returns personal data at the customer's option. Other customer data may be kept after termination, and no retention period is stated.

Vixio
DD on AI Safety and Data StewardshipNothing published on retention, deletion or access for a system that holds client documents.

Nothing is published on retention, deletion, subprocessors, incident notice or encryption, and one published fact explains why. There is no security page in the navigation or footer, both read in full. No retention period, deletion route, subprocessor list, breach notification commitment or encryption statement is published for customer content. No data processing agreement exists, and clause 14 of the terms explains why: Vixio treats itself as the controller of personal data provided to it rather than a processor, because it decides what data is required, how it is used, whether third parties process it and how long it is kept. A buyer therefore has no processor commitments to read, by design. The privacy policy was not opened and may say more about retention or sharing.

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.

CUBE
AA on AI Liability and RecourseWhat the vendor stands behind when its output is wrong is published and specific: indemnity scope, caps, carve outs, and any insurance or warranty a buyer can actually invoke.

Clause 11.2 of the Global Terms has CUBE defend and indemnify the customer against third party claims that the services infringe intellectual property. The remedies are to procure a right, modify or replace the services, or terminate and refund unused fees, with exclusions for freely available content, modification by others, misuse and unapproved combinations. Clause 12.4 excludes lost profits, lost data and consequential loss and caps CUBE at the fees for the contract year, rising to three times those fees for breach of confidentiality and for indemnity claims. Clause 4.1 warrants that the services are performed with the skill and care of the industry and in line with the documentation, with correction or reperformance as the remedy. Accuracy, completeness and timeliness of content are disclaimed, CUBE carries no liability for decisions the customer makes on it, and no insurance is stated.

Vixio
CC on AI Liability and RecourseLiability is addressed only through a standard limitation clause that disclaims the exposure the product creates.

The allocation of loss can be read in advance, through a standard limitation clause, in an agreement older than the AI product it now governs. Clause 10.10 caps liability at the price paid for the particular services in the twelve months before the claim. Clause 10.4 excludes direct as well as indirect, special and consequential losses, along with lost profits, savings, business, opportunity, goodwill, data, contract, use and management time. Clause 10.3 keeps the mandatory carve outs for death or personal injury caused by negligence, fraud and anything that cannot lawfully be excluded. Materials are supplied as is, with all other warranties excluded in clauses 10.1 and 10.9. One protection favors the customer: clause 12.3 requires Vixio, at its own expense, to defend third party intellectual property claims arising from the website or materials and pay resulting judgments or settlements, on standard conditions. There is no insurance position, no warranty on output, and nothing on a wrong AI answer. The terms were last updated 12 October 2023, before VIQ existed.

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.

CUBE
BB on Practice Systems Integration DepthReal integrations exist and are documented, short of depth: named connections without a description of what they actually move.

RegConnect, CUBE's API module, connects RegPlatform with GRC platforms, policy tools and internal systems in both directions. Authorized applications pull regulatory intelligence, trigger platform functions and push data back, under role based authentication with every access logged. Links between regulatory content and downstream policies, processes and controls stay live, so connected items are flagged for review when a rule changes. Intel content reaches other systems through a REST API with a developer portal, and Powered By licenses content to platform builders. IBM's watsonx.governance is the one named destination. The developer documentation is not public, and no GRC platform is named.

Vixio
DD on Practice Systems Integration DepthNo integration into practice systems located, or the product stands alone and requires work to move to it.

Nothing published addresses connecting Vixio to other systems. The site navigation and full footer, read, have no integrations page, API reference, developer documentation or connector directory, and no third party system is named as an integration target. Every workflow tool is internal: task management, project tracking, reporting, the obligations library and the document store all work inside Vixio rather than pushing obligations or tasks into a customer's GRC, policy or document management systems. The nearest outbound flow is generating reports and sharing them by URL, which is document distribution, not integration. The two services also use separate login domains for gambling and payments rather than one environment. The product's output is meant to end in changed controls and updated policies inside other systems, so this is a real gap.

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.

CUBE
BB on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyDeployment model is stated clearly with partial residency detail, or residency is offered without the processing location being addressed, or the tenancy model is stated on its own with no residency detail published.

Annex A of the privacy exhibit sets out where CUBE runs. Enterprise services sit in two data centers in Great Britain, Datum in Farnborough and Vantage in Newport. Microsoft Azure hosts Intel and Hub AI in the United Kingdom and EU North, RegRoom in the United States and Oden in an eastern United States region. Group companies give technical and operational support under an intragroup agreement carrying EU standard contractual clauses and the UK transfer addendum. No customer choice of region is described, and where processing happens is not separated from where data is stored.

Vixio
DD on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyNothing published on where the software runs or where client data sits.

Nothing published addresses deployment or residency. No hosting provider, data center location, region option, tenancy model or processing location is published on any surface read, and there is no security page in which such detail would ordinarily sit. What can be established is limited to the delivery shape and the corporate footing: the services are browser-delivered through two hosted environments at gc.vixio.com and pc.vixio.com, a status page is published at status.vixio.com, and the contracting entity is Compliance Online Limited, registered in England and Wales with company number 05706431 at St Clare House, 30 Minories, London, with the terms governed by English law and subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts. That tells a buyer which legal system applies and nothing about where its data sits or who runs the infrastructure. The privacy policy was not opened and is the remaining surface that might address international transfers.

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.

CUBE
DD on Security Certifications and Trust CenterNo independent security attestation located.

No ISO 27001, SOC 2 or other certification is claimed on CUBE's site or in its agreements, and no auditor or report is named. The data security exhibit commits it to a written information security program that adopts or aligns with an industry standard, with the ISO 27000 family, SOC 2 Type 2 and CIS benchmarks given as examples. The privacy exhibit mentions a trust center portal as one possible route for subprocessor updates, and no trust center is linked from the site.

Vixio
DD on Security Certifications and Trust CenterNo independent security attestation located.

No independent security attestation is claimed anywhere. No SOC 2, ISO 27001, ISO 27701 or equivalent appears on the home page, the VIQ page, the terms or the footer, and there is no security page, trust center or compliance page; all were read in full. No auditor, certification body, penetration test, scope statement or report request route is published, and no certification mark appears on the site. The only assurance related items are a service status page and two industry awards in the footer, neither a security attestation. The platform is sold to banks, payment institutions, licensed gambling operators and regulators, all of which run third party assurance as routine. This records what the public pages show, not what Vixio holds internally.

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.

CUBE
CC on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe vendor refers to advanced or proprietary models without identifying what sits underneath.

CUBE describes its AI as proprietary and trained only on regulatory content, classifying, extracting, mapping and linking publications in 100 languages. Its coworkers draw on regulatory and network intelligence that, in CUBE's words, generic AI models are not trained on. No model, model family or outside model provider is named, and nothing says whether a general purpose model sits behind the coworkers' natural language answers. Microsoft Azure appears as a hosting subprocessor, and no notice of model changes is committed.

Vixio
CC on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe vendor refers to advanced or proprietary models without identifying what sits underneath.

The data boundary is described precisely, and the model behind it is never named. Vixio publishes a retrieval design rather than a model stack: a regulatory intelligence graph of more than 90,000 verified content items connected by intent rather than keyword, drawing on more than 6,200 curated sources, with VIQ working only across Vixio's own data and never the open web. That answers where the knowledge comes from, a compliance buyer's first question, and leaves the vendor risk question open. No model, model family, provider or hosting arrangement is named, nothing says whether a third party foundation model generates the answers, and nothing rules one out. No commitment to notify customers when the models change is published. A customer quote on the same page praises VIQ for never touching the open web, which concerns the content rather than whose model reads it.

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.

CUBE
CC on Commercial TransparencyPricing is gated behind a demo request while tier names and feature splits are published, so the shape is visible and the number is not.

No price is published, and every product page routes to a demo or a conversation with a CUBE expert. Its Global Terms set the commercial shape. Fees are set for each contract year in an order form that names the number of authorized users, and invoices follow the order form's payment terms. Unless the order form fixes the fees, they rise 5 percent at the start of each contract year, late amounts carry 1.5 percent a month, and the agreement renews unless either side gives 60 days' notice. Intel has its own subscription terms, version 1.1 of June 2026. Nothing states what implementation adds.

Vixio
CC on Commercial TransparencyPricing is gated behind a demo request while tier names and feature splits are published, so the shape is visible and the number is not.

No rate is published, but much of the commercial shape can be read from the terms, since there is no pricing page. The unit of charge is stated: a subscriber license covers either a fixed number of users or unlimited users, with login details issued to each user and Vixio reserving the right to audit password sharing. Payment for bespoke work is published: 50 percent up front as a deposit and the rest on delivery, with extra fees agreed in advance for research beyond the agreed scope. Renewal favors the customer. A reminder setting out the price goes out a month before expiry, and renewal needs written confirmation rather than happening by default; unlimited user licenses are likely to be repriced upward after a merger or acquisition. Late payment carries interest at 5 percent above the Bank of England base rate. Clause 8.1 implies some prices for one off reports are on the website, but no figure is published on any page read.

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.

CUBE
BB on Firm and Practice CoverageSegment and practice coverage is described with substance, short of the boundaries: what is supported is clear, what is not is left open.

Highly regulated industries are CUBE's focus, with solution pages for banking, financial services, insurance, corporates and partners. RegPlatform serves enterprise compliance and risk teams across the first and second lines, and Intel targets fast growing regulated businesses. Oden covers state by state notices and guidance for American insurers writing commercial or personal lines, and Powered By serves platform builders, information businesses and technology providers. Coverage spans regulatory publications, guidance and enforcement actions from more than 10,000 issuing bodies in 250 countries and territories and 100 languages. No practice area or obligation type is named as out of scope.

Vixio
BB on Firm and Practice CoverageSegment and practice coverage is described with substance, short of the boundaries: what is supported is clear, what is not is left open.

The buyer picture is precisely segmented, and the coverage figures conflict. Two industries are covered, each with a hub and five named buyer segments. In financial services: payment services, retail banking, digital assets, regulators and law firms. In gambling: online operators, suppliers, payment service providers, regulators and law firms. Regulators and law firms are addressed as buyers alongside regulated firms, with their own pages. The boundary is stated: the platform is described as built for financial services and gambling. Named regimes include AML, GDPR, MiFID II, MiCA, PSD2, FATF, UKGC, MGA and AGCO. The figures do not match. The home page states more than 200 jurisdictions and more than 1,400 regulatory authorities, while the VIQ page states over 1,600 regulators across more than 246 jurisdictions. Nothing reconciles them or shows which jurisdictions get analyst depth rather than monitoring alone.

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?

CUBE
Purpose limited, in the contract

Clause 3.1 of the Global Terms for CUBE Services, January 2026, leaves customer data owned by the customer. CUBE, its affiliates and subcontractors may use and store it only to the extent needed to carry out the agreement, including keeping it after termination. Clause 8.1 lets CUBE use aggregated service usage data to improve the services, and that data excludes customer data, personal data and confidential information.

The terms bar customers from training AI on CUBE's services or content and say nothing about CUBE training on customer data.

Vixio
Terms silent

No located term addresses whether queries put to VIQ, or any other customer content, are used to train or improve models. The terms were last updated 12 October 2023 and predate the assistant, which is the likeliest explanation for the silence. One adjacent term exists and is narrower than it first appears: clause 6.3 gives Vixio the right in perpetuity to use information a customer submits to the self-assessment tool, on an anonymous basis, for its reasonable business purposes including creating its own analysis and improving its business and services.

That is scoped to a single tool, is expressly anonymized, and says nothing about model training. No data processing agreement exists in which a training commitment could otherwise sit, and clause 14 records that Vixio acts as controller rather than processor. Searched the home page, the VIQ product page, the terms in full and the footer legal set on 1 September 2026.

Prompt and Output Retention

How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?

CUBE
Disclosed without a period

Under clause 3.1 of the Global Terms, CUBE may retain customer data after the agreement ends. Clause 3.2 has it back up customer data daily and keep only the latest copy during the term. At termination, clause 13.3.3 has CUBE delete or return personal data at the customer's option, and the privacy exhibit has it delete personal data on a reasonable request at any time. No retention period is stated for customer data or for what the coworkers produce.

Vixio
Not addressed

No located public material states how long customer inputs or generated outputs are retained, and no configurable or zero-retention option is described. Nothing distinguishes VIQ queries, generated board reports or self-assessment submissions from customer data generally. The one statement bearing on retention is a governance claim rather than a period: clause 14 of the terms records that Vixio determines how long personal data is retained, in the course of explaining why it is a controller rather than a processor, which tells a buyer who decides without telling them what was decided.

The privacy policy was not opened on 1 September 2026 and is the remaining surface where a period might appear. Searched the terms in full, the VIQ page, the home page and the footer legal set.

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?

CUBE
Not addressed

RegConnect gives connected applications role based authentication, so only applications with the right permissions reach RegPlatform data, and each access is logged. Regulatory Inventory and Groups map change to a firm's entities, jurisdictions and business lines, and workflow assigns ownership and approvals. How access is separated between users, teams or business units inside a customer is not described.

Vixio
Not addressed

Nothing located addresses separation between customers, teams or matters. Access is described only through licensing and credentials. A subscriber license covers a fixed or unlimited number of users, each user gets individual login details, the customer must ensure no unauthorized person uses them, and Vixio may audit whether passwords have been shared with non users. Those are license compliance controls, not a permission model; they govern who may log in, not what a user can see once inside.

Nothing says whether one customer's self assessment submissions, saved queries or generated reports are isolated from another's, and there is no security page where such a statement would sit. Searched the terms in full, the VIQ page and the full navigation on 1 September 2026.

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?

CUBE
Notice committed

Clause 10.3 of the Global Terms lets either party disclose confidential information only as far as a court or regulator orders. Where it is able to, the disclosing party informs the other in writing first so the other can seek a protective order, and customer data counts as the customer's confidential information. The privacy exhibit adds notice of any law requiring CUBE to process or disclose personal data, unless the law forbids notice. No transparency report is published.

Vixio
Not addressed

No commitment to notify a customer of a third-party request for its data was located, and no clause addresses law enforcement, regulator or court demands at all. The terms contain no confidentiality section in the usual two-way sense: confidentiality obligations run from the customer to Vixio over passwords and access codes, and the intellectual property provisions protect Vixio's materials, but nothing protects customer-submitted information or governs its disclosure.

That absence is consistent with the controller position at clause 14, since a vendor that does not hold itself out as processing on customer instructions has no processor notice obligation to give. No transparency report exists. The privacy policy was not opened on 1 September 2026 and is the remaining surface. Searched the terms in full and the footer legal set.

Primary Law Corpus Provenance

Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?

CUBE
Jurisdictions only

CUBE captures regulatory publications, guidance and enforcement actions from more than 10,000 issuing bodies across 250 countries and territories in 100 languages, follows about 150,000 sources, and counts its coverage as 750 jurisdictions. Under its Global Terms the content comes from freely and publicly available sources and third party providers, which CUBE compiles, translates, tags and processes. Beside it sits a dataset of more than 300,000 real bank controls contributed by financial institutions. No issuing body, supplier or license is named.

Vixio
Jurisdictions only

The content is quantified in detail, and no individual source is named. Vixio publishes counts at every level: more than 6,200 curated sources, over 20,000 regulatory documents, a graph of more than 90,000 verified content items, and about 8,000 daily sources scanned. Coverage is stated as more than 200 jurisdictions and 1,400 regulatory authorities on the home page, but over 1,600 regulators and more than 246 jurisdictions on the VIQ page, and nothing reconciles the two.

Named regimes appear as examples, including AML, GDPR, MiFID II, MiCA, PSD2, FATF, UKGC, MGA and AGCO. No regulator feed, publisher or data supplier is named, and no license or public domain basis is stated. Updates are described only qualitatively, with analysts updating the graph as new legislation lands, and part of the content is Vixio's own analyst commentary rather than primary material.

Good Law Verification

Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?

CUBE
Own treatment signal

Tracking a rule's later state is the core of the product. Horizon Scanning follows change in every country, territory and published language, content is structured and versioned, and Regulatory Inventory maps each change to the entities, jurisdictions and business lines it affects. When a regulation changes, RegConnect flags the policies, processes and controls linked to it in connected systems. No lag between a regulator publishing and the platform reflecting it is stated.

Vixio
Own treatment signal

The regulatory equivalent is a shipped capability, and the method is people. Vixio maintains an obligations library, a regulatory document store and continuous monitoring. It says the VIQ data graph is continuously updated by its analysts as new legislation lands, with analysts validating and enriching high value updates before publication. That is the vendor maintaining the current state of its own content rather than licensing a treatment service.

Every VIQ claim traces back to the source text or analyst report behind it, so a user can check what the current position rests on. Two limits remain: no comparison or redline view between a superseded and a current rule was located, and no lag is stated between a regulator publishing and the change reaching the platform.

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?

CUBE
Not addressed

The Priorities Coworker ranks regulatory developments by certainty and applicability for a firm, and coworker answers come back with their sources. No path is described for a classification, mapping or answer the system cannot support, and no abstention behavior or confidence value is described.

Vixio
Documented

A refusal behavior is documented. The FAQ, answering how VIQ differs from general purpose assistants, says it works in a closed environment over Vixio's analyst verified data, cites every claim, and says it does not know rather than making up an answer. That is a described behavior at the edge of the content, not a confidence score or a disclaimer, and it addresses the failure that matters most here: a confident answer about a jurisdiction the vendor does not actually cover.

No demonstration, evaluation or example of the refusal is published for an outsider to test, and no threshold or coverage indicator is described, so a user cannot tell in advance which jurisdictions or questions fall inside the boundary.

Fabricated Citation Record

Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?

CUBE
None located

The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming CUBE, RegPlatform or Oden. CUBE's products turn regulatory change into obligations and mapped controls for compliance and risk teams at regulated businesses.

Vixio
None located

Searched the AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin at HEC Paris, with 2026 sanctions trackers and trade coverage, on 1 September 2026, for the company name and both service names, GamblingCompliance and PaymentsCompliance. No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Vixio or either service was located. This is a statement about the public record, not a finding about the product. The failure mode is direct here, because Vixio sells to law firms in both industries and markets defensible advice as the outcome.

A fabricated or misattributed regulatory citation could reach a client advice note or a licensing submission, not only an internal compliance file.

Bar Guidance Alignment

Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?

CUBE
Not addressed

No CUBE material engages ABA Formal Opinion 512, Law Society or SRA guidance, or a regulator's statement on AI use inside a compliance or legal function. The website terms tell readers to take professional advice before acting on site content, and Intel's terms say the service is not professional advice.

Vixio
Generic reference

Professional responsibility is engaged directly and repeatedly, and no guidance is named. The terms say materials are not advice to rely on, are not a definitive or complete statement of the law, and are not legal or expert advice or recommendations, and clause 6.2 repeats this for self assessment reports. The VIQ FAQ says the assistant is built to support a legal team or compliance officers, not replace them. That engagement is entirely self referential.

Nothing cites ABA Formal Opinion 512, Solicitors Regulation Authority or Law Society guidance, or any regulator or bar statement on AI in legal or compliance work. The absence matters more because Vixio publishes dedicated pages for law firms in both industries.

Billing and Fee Posture

Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?

CUBE
Outside the fee relationship

CUBE sells to compliance and risk teams at banks, insurers and other regulated businesses, and to platform builders that embed its content. Its pitch is the buyer's own effort: one source of truth across the first and second lines, duplicate work removed, and automated triage in place of manual monitoring. No record of AI assisted work by matter is kept for fee purposes.

Vixio
Savings claims only

Time saving claims are quantified, and nothing addresses billing or disclosure. Vixio markets a 90 percent reduction in research time and says the average compliance professional loses 70 percent of their time to reactive paperwork and manual website trawling. Law firms are a named buyer segment, with dedicated pages in both financial services and gambling, sold on delivering defensible advice and fast answers for clients.

So a firm using VIQ to research a client matter faces a real question about how that help is disclosed and billed. Nothing published addresses it, and no record of AI assisted work by matter is described for that purpose, although VIQ's citations would support one.

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?

CUBE
Subprocessors listed

Annex A of the privacy exhibit lists the material subprocessors with their locations and transfer mechanisms. They are Datum and Vantage data centers in Great Britain, Microsoft Azure for cloud hosting by product, and CUBE group companies under an intragroup transfer agreement. A new subprocessor comes with five days for the customer to object, and updates go to a mailing list or trust center the customer subscribes to. No model provider is named and no client facing disclosure material is published.

Vixio
Not addressed

Nothing that would support a client disclosure obligation is published. No subprocessor list exists, and no third party is identified beyond a general statement in clause 10.7 that Vixio relies on third party providers to make the website and materials available, and a reference to third party payment handlers. No model provider is named, and nothing says whether a third party foundation model generates VIQ's answers.

No data processing agreement, consent pack or disclosure material for clients exists, which follows from the controller position in clause 14, and no route to request any of it was located. The gap matters because Vixio sells to law firms, the buyers most likely to face a client AI clause.

Court Disclosure Support

If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?

CUBE
Partial record

RegPlatform keeps an audit trail from the first sign of a rule change through obligations, control mapping and reporting, built to give the board, auditors and regulators traceable evidence. The Priorities Coworker records its assessment decisions, the Analysis Coworker keeps each research record, and Regulatory Inventory logs the reasoning behind each mapping. No export for each document identifies the model used or the person who reviewed the output, and the record is built for supervisors rather than courts.

Vixio
Partial record

Traceability is strong and aimed at a regulator, and it falls short of a record of AI use. Vixio builds an audit trail as a product stage: the track and audit phase keeps a central, time stamped record of actions to give internal audit a clear trail of compliance and accountability, supported by reporting and the obligations library. VIQ adds provenance: every claim carries a direct citation to the source text or analyst report behind it, which the company calls full explainability to regulators, and outputs can be exported as board reports and shared by URL.

Nothing says the record separates VIQ generated material from analyst written material, names the model that produced an output, or captures who verified it. A user could show what a claim rests on, but not how it was produced.

What neither one publishes

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.

Axes where neither earns credit
  • AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
  • Security Certifications and Trust Center
Signals neither addresses in public material
  • Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

Which one fits

Choose CUBE if

  • You want the obligations tied to your controls. CUBE maps every obligation to the controls that cover it, shows gaps with full lineage, and benchmarks controls against more than 300,000 contributed by other financial institutions.
  • You want agents doing the first pass. CUBE's Priorities Coworker ranks developments by certainty and applicability, a step early customer testing put at 80 to 90 percent less noise, and the Analysis Coworker answers questions across RegBook with sources.
  • You want the contract readable before you sign. CUBE publishes Global Terms with an intellectual property indemnity, a performance warranty and a cap that triples for confidentiality and indemnity claims, plus a privacy exhibit that lists its subprocessors and hosting locations.

Choose Vixio if

  • You want a person to have read it before you do. Vixio's corpus is written and validated by its own domain specialists, with analysts enriching high value updates before publication across more than 6,200 curated sources. VIQ operates in a closed box over that verified material rather than the open web. It traces every claim back to the original source text or the analyst report behind it, and states that it does not know rather than answering when it cannot.
  • You want the vendor to say what it is not. Vixio's terms state that its commentary and materials are not to be relied on as a definitive or complete statement of the law and do not constitute legal or expert advice. Its self assessment reports are stated to be for information only. The product carries a standing instruction to verify critical information against official sources, and its published FAQ asks whether the assistant replaces a legal team or compliance officers and answers no.
  • Your firm is a regulator or a law firm rather than the regulated entity. Vixio addresses five buyer segments in each of its two industries, and in both, regulators and law firms are named as distinct buyers alongside the operators. The boundary is stated plainly: the platform is described as purpose built for financial services and gambling rather than for regulated industry generally.

In summary

CUBE

CUBE sells regulatory intelligence to banks, insurers and other regulated businesses. RegPlatform turns regulatory change from more than 10,000 issuing bodies into obligations mapped to a firm's controls, with agentic coworkers for triage, research and control quality, and Intel serves growing firms. According to the AI Legal Index, CUBE's Global Terms carry an intellectual property indemnity, a performance warranty and capped liability, and its privacy exhibit lists hosting in Great Britain and on Microsoft Azure. No price or security certification is published.

Source: AI Legal Index, 2026

Vixio

Vixio is a regulatory intelligence business built around analyst written coverage of financial services and gambling. It follows a five stage change lifecycle, from horizon monitoring through applicability, impact assessment, implementation and audit, with jurisdiction reports, an obligations library and a document store. Its assistant, VIQ, is grounded exclusively in Vixio's own analyst verified data, cites every claim and states that it does not know rather than answering. The AI Legal Index records terms stating that its materials are not a definitive statement of the law and do not constitute legal advice. No security page, certification, data processing agreement or residency statement is published.

Source: AI Legal Index, 2026

Questions buyers ask

CUBE vs Vixio: which is better for regulatory intelligence?

It turns on how much you want the platform to do. CUBE pairs its regulatory experts with AI that maps change to obligations and controls, and with agents that triage and research inside the workflow. Vixio's intelligence is written and validated by analysts before publication, with its assistant answering only from that verified material. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.

Who writes the regulatory intelligence?

Both use people and machines, in different proportions. CUBE's proprietary AI classifies, extracts and maps publications from more than 10,000 issuing bodies in 100 languages, with 250 regulatory experts behind the content and expert review in Intel. Vixio employs domain specialist analysts who validate and enrich high value updates before publication. Its assistant answers only from that verified material, never the open web, with a citation back to the source or the analyst report for every claim. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.

Which contract terms are published?

Both publish customer terms. Vixio's cover the advice line, a liability cap, an intellectual property indemnity running to the customer, the licensing unit and the renewal process, though they predate the AI product. CUBE's Global Terms of January 2026 carry an intellectual property indemnity, a performance warranty and a cap at the year's fees that triples for confidentiality and indemnity claims. Fees rise 5 percent a year unless the order form fixes them. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.

Does either say what it is not?

Vixio does, in three places that reinforce each other. Its agreement says so, a standing product notice tells users to verify critical information against official sources, and an FAQ answers directly that the assistant is built for augmentation rather than replacement. CUBE says so in its Intel terms, which call the service no form of legal, compliance or other professional advice. Its RegPlatform terms only exclude liability for decisions made on the content. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.

What do CUBE and Vixio both leave unpublished?

Neither publishes a price, a rate or a unit a buyer could budget against. Neither publishes an accuracy figure for the obligation identification each depends on, where the failure that matters is an obligation that never surfaces. Neither publishes an AI governance position with an accountable owner or any evaluation of uneven output across jurisdictions. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.

Disclosure

Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything on it comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.

Neither vendor publishes a security attestation on platforms sold to banks, payment institutions, licensed operators and regulators. CUBE's data security exhibit commits it to a written security program aligned with a recognized standard, and Vixio publishes no security page at all. CUBE publishes its Global Terms, its Intel subscription terms and a privacy exhibit listing its subprocessors. Vixio's terms were last updated in October 2023 and so predate its AI assistant, which leaves the AI statements on product pages rather than in the contract. Clause 14 records that Vixio is the controller of personal data provided to it rather than a processor, which is why no data processing agreement exists. Vixio's own pages also disagree on coverage, giving more than 200 jurisdictions and 1,400 authorities in one place and more than 246 and 1,600 in another. Neither vendor reviewed this page.

Contact

Correct a record, or ask how something was graded

Every grade and every signal on this index is drawn from public sources and dated. If a record is wrong, out of date, or missing an artifact the index did not locate, send the source and it will be reviewed and the record redated. Vendors are welcome to submit documentation. Nothing on this index is for sale, including a listing, a placement, or a grade.

AI Legal Index

The AI Legal Index is an independent index that tracks changes to AI vendors in legal. It holds 462 vendors across 9 categories, each graded on the same 15 capability axes and recorded against 12 legal signals, from public sources. No vendor pays for inclusion, placement, or rating.

Index Status
Last index update
October 16, 2026
The AI Legal Index is an editorial reference. It is not a regulatory body, not a law firm, and nothing published here is legal advice or a recommendation to retain or avoid a vendor. Records are verified against published sources, bar guidance and public court records. Where a record reads not addressed, the material was not located in public sources on the date shown. See the Methodology page for evaluation standards and limitations.
© 2026 AI Legal Index
3801 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste E240 · Austin, TX 78746