Dazychain vs Xakia: how they compare in 2026
Dazychain and Xakia are both matter management platforms for in house legal teams from Melbourne, and both list per user prices. Dazychain, made by Yarris Technologies, keeps its AI tightly bounded. DazychainAI runs only when a user clicks, reads only the matter or document it was opened on, can be switched off for the account and runs on Amazon Bedrock in Australia or the United States. Xakia's AI reviews contracts in Word against the customer's playbook and extracts key terms with a confidence score and source clause, applied only when a user clicks Apply. Xakia publishes its Terms of Service, data processing addendum and an AI addendum that states output is not legal advice and keeps no inputs or outputs once delivered. That addendum bars training on inputs and outputs but lets Xakia train its AI features on anonymized data derived from them. Dazychain signs its customer agreement with each customer and publishes none.
Which one fits
Choose Dazychain if
- You want AI that does nothing until someone asks. DazychainAI runs only when a user engages a function, works only inside the matter or document it was opened on, and can be turned off for the whole account, leaving a working matter system.
- You want to know where the model runs. Dazychain runs its AI on Amazon Bedrock in Australia or the United States by customer location, with each model in a dedicated AWS account. Bedrock does not store inputs or outputs or use them for training, and customer information is not used to train external models.
- You want to show the business what legal is carrying. Dazychain's dashboards report matter volume, workload and lifecycle by team, function or region, and MYOB's deputy general counsel, Helen Carr, describes using that data to win additional headcount.
Choose Xakia if
- You want the AI's limits written into the contract. Xakia's AI addendum states that output is general information rather than legal advice and that the features must be used by or under the direct supervision of legal practitioners. It requires a lawyer to review output and bars automated decisions with legal effects on individuals without proper human review.
- You want extracted terms you can check against the contract. Xakia's key terms extraction shows a confidence score, the source clause and the exact text relied on for each extracted term, and nothing reaches the contract repository until a user clicks Apply.
- You work in several languages or currencies. Xakia can be configured in English, Japanese, Spanish, French, Danish, Dutch and Brazilian Portuguese, and its spend module supports all currencies. Outside counsel submit invoices through the Connect portal at no charge, with no percentage taken on invoice value.
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.
Dazychain sells matter management first, described in its footer as capture, triage, manage, resolve. Its pricing table shows a complete platform on every plan, with AI as one section among matter management, documents, spend, collaboration, workflow, reporting and integrations. AI use is capped on Launch and unlimited on Scale and Optimize. DazychainAI runs only when a user clicks a function, and the AI FAQ says it can be turned off completely for an account, which leaves a working matter management system. The AI summarizes matters and documents, finds information across a matter's content, answers questions about the customer's documents and compares an external contract with the customer's playbook. Saved AI summaries and outcomes can be reused in the matter. All of it sits on top of the matter record rather than forming it.
Xakia's AI powers contract review, term extraction, summaries, plain language retrieval and invoice review within a broader legal operations platform. Contract reviewers apply a chosen playbook in Word and select Pragmatic, Balanced or Strict review settings. Extracted terms retain the source clause and require approval before entering the repository. Invoice analysis applies billing guidelines and flags inconsistencies in totals, tax and vendor details. AI remains optional, with extra charges on Advance and Professional and inclusion on Enterprise and All In. The underlying matters, tasks, intake, spend and entity workflows can operate without models. Connections from Claude and Copilot remain forthcoming, initially with read access only.
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.
Extractions are designed to be highly accurate, the AI FAQ says, but like any automated system they may need review. Users validate and edit extractions in the platform before anything is finalized or shared. A limitations entry adds that the AI works only within the matter or document it is engaged on, and that clear, well structured and complete documents give better results. Dazychain gives no accuracy figure, test set or error rate, and does not describe how a summary, extraction or answer points back to the passage it came from. The AI page credits Amazon Bedrock with detecting correct responses and minimizing hallucinations and ambiguity. That is a statement about the hosting service rather than a measure of DazychainAI's own output on matters and contracts.
Xakia's AI points back to the customer's own documents. Key terms extraction returns each term with a confidence indication, the clause it came from and the exact text it relied on. A user reviews each value, corrects it and clicks Apply before anything reaches the contract repository. Contract review marks up a third party contract in Word against the customer's chosen playbook, governing law, market practice and basic drafting standards, at a Pragmatic, Balanced or Strict setting. It flags each deviation with a suggested redline for the lawyer to review. The query generated from a plain English request remains visible, editable and reusable. The AI addendum says output may not be accurate or up to date and must be reviewed by a lawyer. The FAQ commits to expanding AI without compromising accuracy, and Xakia gives no accuracy figure, error rate or test results.
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.
DazychainAI acts only when a user engages it. The AI FAQ says it accesses data only when a user actively engages an AI function, such as clicking a button, so confidential matters stay untouched until assistance is requested. It works only within the matter or document it is engaged on and does not reach data outside that context. Extractions may need review, and users validate and edit them in the platform before anything is finalized or shared. AI can be turned off entirely for an account, and the FAQ's answer on restricting AI by role or matter type offers only that account wide switch. Outputs carry no confidence indicator, and no threshold or abstention state is described. Separately, the intake feature lets business users generate a document such as a nondisclosure agreement from a template the legal team approved in advance.
Every Xakia AI feature requires a human decision before material is saved, applied or sent. Contract review proposes revisions inside Word against the selected playbook, and a reviewer decides which changes to use. Extraction exposes each value and its supporting clause before the user presses Apply. Invoice reviewers can waive findings, and their decisions enter an audit trail. The AI addendum requires legal practitioner supervision and prohibits consequential automated decisions without proper human review. These are usable review mechanisms, but the service does not specify a general stopping rule for unsupported reasoning or a complete correction and escalation process after an erroneous result.
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.
Each client story names the organization and the people involved. Helen Carr, Deputy General Counsel at MYOB, describes using Dazychain's matter data to show growth in the volume and complexity of matters and to win additional headcount. Mercia Chapman, Senior Legal Counsel at Equity Trustees, speaks on email capture and retrieval. Further stories cover Perenti's global mining legal work, SEE Civil's time saved finding files, and process improvements at Sage Automation, with VicReturn, Education Services Australia and SAGE Group also listed. The MYOB account describes an operational outcome that the platform's reporting made possible. The stories are not dated, and no quantity is attached to any customer's result.
Coca-Cola Europacific Partners uses Xakia to consolidate the Australian legal team's matters and replace paper forms and monthly spreadsheet reporting. Its deputy general counsel describes reporting delays of up to two months before adoption and current visibility into matters afterward. The team also used the information to identify trademark workload and allocate that work to an internal specialist. Other named users describe workload allocation, request handling and integrated files, including Contact Energy, Kiwi Property and the City of Murfreesboro. These are operational accounts from identifiable organizations. They do not measure the contribution of current AI features or provide a controlled before and after study of contract or invoice analysis.
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.
Tenant aware segregation keeps each customer's information out of reach of every other customer unless permission is given, as in a collaboration, and the security page describes it as fully supported. Data is encrypted with AES 256 at rest in a MongoDB store and with HTTPS and TLS 1.3 in transit, and documents sit encrypted in Amazon S3. Role based access applies on every plan, and every access and change to documents, matters and deliverables is logged and preserved. DazychainAI reaches nothing until a user clicks and stays inside the matter or document engaged. Amazon Bedrock does not store its inputs or outputs, each model runs in a dedicated AWS account, and customer information is not used to train external models. These commitments sit in the FAQ and the security page rather than a contract on the site. Staff sign confidentiality agreements and take annual security training, and privilege and work product get no separate treatment.
Confidential matters are restricted to designated people, with those restrictions applied to files in Xakia's integrated repository or connected document system. Roles, teams, locations and individual permissions further limit access, while outside counsel receive only material shared through Connect. The service agreement protects subscriber information, and the AI addendum prohibits training on inputs and outputs by Xakia or its model providers. A separate clause permits training on anonymous data and statistics derived from inputs. Inputs are processed transiently, with no Xakia retention after delivery. These controls address matter confidentiality and privilege, but unnamed third party models and their specific handling remain unresolved.
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.
Although DazychainAI drafts summaries and answers questions about legal documents, the site draws no advice line. The only legal document the site links is a privacy policy, with no terms of service, end user agreement or disclaimer page. The AI FAQ notes that extractions may need review and that users validate them before anything is shared. It does not say that output is not legal advice or that a lawyer must review generated content before it is relied on. Business users who are not lawyers can complete an intake form that feeds a template approved in advance and generates a tailored document, such as a nondisclosure agreement. The AI page says that document can be reviewed or sent back to the requester without manual intervention, and sets no legal checkpoint around that choice. No rule of professional conduct, bar authority or jurisdiction limit is named.
AI output from Xakia is general information rather than legal advice. Its AI addendum requires use by legal practitioners or under their direct supervision, in accordance with professional conduct obligations. Users must validate or disregard output using their own skill, judgment and experience, and a lawyer must review it as appropriate to the intended use. Automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects require human review. These obligations address professional supervision alongside the product's drafting and analysis functions. They do not set jurisdiction specific limits on what legal work the models can perform or map the controls to particular bar guidance.
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.
The AI FAQ covers what DazychainAI does, where it runs, what data it uses, how to switch it off and its limits, and the security page covers information security. Neither sets out AI principles, an owner accountable for model behavior, testing before release or findings on bias. The nearest structure is the Information Security Management System, with documented policies, annual staff training and documented acceptance, which governs staff conduct and data security rather than model behavior. DazychainAI's limits run through product design instead. The AI stays inactive until a user clicks, works inside one matter or document and can be switched off for the whole account, and the FAQ offers no narrower control by role or matter type. Dazychain holds no ISO/IEC 42001 certification.
AI controls at Xakia sit in the features and the contract rather than in a governance framework. Its AI page makes every feature opt in, so the customer decides what its team uses and when, and gives each feature a human checkpoint so nothing is applied without a user's sign off. The AI addendum bars automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects on individuals without proper human review, and bars uses that are discriminatory or bias inducing. It also requires a lawyer to review output. The feature set includes reviewed contract revisions, extracted terms and invoice findings, but no evaluation method accompanies those workflows. Xakia sets out no AI principles, owner of AI governance, testing before release or bias findings, holds no ISO/IEC 42001 certification, and its security page covers information security.
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.
On termination Dazychain keeps customer data for the period the customer requests, usually one month, then deletes it, with other arrangements on request. The FAQ gives backup retention of two weeks for the MongoDB database and unlimited retention for documents in Amazon S3. Access control runs through role based access on every plan and an audit trail that logs every access and every change to documents, matters and deliverables. Staff pass police background screening on joining and every two years, sign confidentiality agreements and take annual security training. Data is encrypted with AES 256 at rest and TLS 1.3 in transit. Amazon hosts the application and files and Object Rocket the database. The FAQ says all subprocessors, such as AWS, ObjectRocket, CloudFront and SIEM providers, are bound by contractual controls, without listing them all. Penetration testing runs internally before each release and annually through an outside agency, and AWS multiple availability zones serve as the disaster recovery setup. Dazychain states compliance with the Australian Privacy Act 1988 and GDPR. Dazychain sets no breach notification period or commitment on its site.
Subscriber data stays for thirty days after termination before deletion under Xakia's agreement, while the AI addendum treats input and output processing as transient and leaves necessary retention to the customer. Backups run every five minutes and remain for thirty five days in the same country. The DPA requires breach notice without undue delay and thirty days' advance notice of new subprocessors, with objection rights. Encryption, restricted matters, multifactor authentication and annual penetration tests support access protection. The processor schedule identifies hosting and business systems but does not name the AI model providers. The service terms also exclude responsibility for sensitive data, including protected health information.
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.
A privacy policy and a sitemap are the only legal documents linked from the site, with no terms of service, subscription agreement, end user terms or service level document. The FAQ refers to data processing agreements and a 12 month minimum contract term, which sit in documents signed with each customer. Indemnities, liability caps, warranties, exclusions and insurance are left to that signed contract. The AI FAQ describes output as designed to be highly accurate while noting that it may need review. How loss from a wrong summary, extraction or playbook comparison is shared between Dazychain and a customer depends on the contract offered in a sales process. The privacy policy is the only document on the site that governs customer data.
Warranty disclaimers and liability limits apply to the AI features through Xakia's platform agreement and AI addendum. Each party's liability is capped at the amounts paid or payable in the 12 months before the first incident. Xakia's liability for breaching its data security or confidentiality obligations, or any data processing addendum, rises to three times that cap. Indirect, consequential and lost profit damages are excluded. Its intellectual property indemnity is outside the general cap. Xakia defends the subscriber and its users against third party claims that the platform, used as authorized, infringes intellectual property. Trials and betas carry no warranty or indemnity, and Xakia's liability for them is capped at $1,000. The AI addendum says output may not be accurate or up to date and must be reviewed by a lawyer, and Xakia gives no indemnity specific to AI output.
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 integrations page and FAQ name each connection and what it does. Outlook creates matters from emails and files messages into existing matters, including from shared mailboxes, and Gmail does the same without shared inbox support. Word documents are created, edited and redlined inside matters with version history, and DocuSign sends documents for signature from a workflow. The FAQ adds ServiceNow and single sign on through Okta, Microsoft Entra and other SAML providers, and the pricing table lists SCIM and ADFS. The pricing table shows API access on Optimize, while the FAQ says API and webhook capabilities are not available, and the integrations page offers API based HR system integrations on request. SharePoint and a document library and knowledge base are listed as coming soon. The pages describe what each email and document connection does, without configuration detail.
Integrations are listed by plan on the pricing page. Every plan includes Outlook, Word, SharePoint, Gmail and Microsoft Teams integrations, API access, and single sign on through Entra, Okta, SCIM or ADFS. Professional and above add iManage and NetDocuments integrations and connections to Brightflag, DocuSign, Ironclad and Josef. Slack and Salesforce appear on the higher plans, with Salesforce at extra cost. Xakia offers to keep documents in the customer's own SharePoint rather than migrating them, and the API carries no charge. The pages name each connection without saying what data moves in which direction or what an administrator configures. An MCP server with connectors to Claude and Copilot is listed as coming soon for All In.
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.
Application data sits in Amazon data centers in Australia and the United States, the security page says, with the database at Object Rocket in the same two regions and documents in Amazon S3, across multiple availability zones. The AI runs on Amazon Bedrock in Australia or the United States according to the customer's location, with each model in a dedicated AWS account, so processing is addressed apart from storage. Older FAQ entries and the privacy policy say data is stored in Australia, and the privacy policy says personal information is not disclosed outside Australia without consent. Segregation is described as tenant aware, without describing the architecture. No single tenant, dedicated or self hosted option is offered, no region choice is presented to the buyer, and deployment does not change between the three plans. Dazychain has offices in Melbourne and Boston.
Microsoft Azure hosts Xakia, and customers choose where data is stored in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom or the United States, with a Middle East location listed as coming soon. Different users in one account can have different data locations. European and UK customers can keep data on Azure servers in the United Kingdom or the Netherlands, and the Terms of Service, effective 1 October 2025, are built around the data location the subscriber selects. Section 1.4 of the AI addendum says AI processing runs where the third party AI tools are available and may differ from the selected location, with the processing location shown in the subscriber's account. Separate privacy policies cover Australia, the United States, Europe and Canada. Whether customers share infrastructure is not stated.
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.
Dazychain states that its ISO 27001 controls and wider Information Security Management System are audited internally and externally each year. It also states that SOC 2 internal and external audits run annually and produce SOC 2 reports. No auditor or certifying body is named, and no SOC 2 type is given, so the page does not say whether the report covers a point in time or a period. The certificate and reports carry no date, period or scope, and Dazychain offers no trust portal or request form for them. The ISO claim cites the 2013 edition of ISO 27001, whose transition period to the 2022 edition ended in October 2025. AWS certifications listed alongside, including FedRAMP and SOC 1, belong to AWS. Penetration testing runs internally before each release and annually through an outside agency.
Xakia states certification to ISO/IEC 27001:2022, SOC 2 Type 2 and HIPAA compliance on its security page, FAQ and pricing page, with regular independent audits of its applications, systems and networks. Its trust center shows compliance monitoring and controls and offers the ISO 27001:2022 certificate, a penetration test attestation and the SOC 2 Type 2 report on request. The data processing agreement and current and past subprocessor lists sit beside them. Third party experts test the application and infrastructure once a year, and third party tools scan the platform for vulnerabilities continuously. The platform is hosted on Microsoft Azure in Tier III facilities certified to ISO 27001:2022, SOC 2, PCI DSS, HIPAA and FedRAMP, with Australia's IRAP and the UK's G Cloud among the regional standards. The open pages name no auditing firm, audit period or report date.
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.
All DazychainAI tools run on Amazon Bedrock, with each model in a dedicated AWS account. Bedrock does not store inputs or outputs, share them with third parties or use them for training, and inference runs in Australia or the United States according to the customer's location. The service, the region and the data conditions are stated, while the model maker is not. Bedrock hosts models from several makers, and Dazychain names no model or version and does not say which model produces a summary as against a playbook comparison. Dazychain sets no notice period for a change of model, version or hosting arrangement, and its FAQ binds subprocessors such as AWS through contractual controls without listing them.
Third party AI tools, defined as the third party language models and AI technology behind the AI features, appear in Xakia's AI addendum without being named. It says Xakia does not control their operation or continued availability, and that their processing location may differ from the subscriber's data location and is shown in the subscriber's account. Section 6 says any flow down terms the providers require are displayed at trust.xakiatech.com, and section 8.3 gives at least thirty days' notice of changes to the addendum. The subprocessor list in Xakia's trust center names Microsoft and business systems such as HubSpot and Stripe but no AI model provider. Neither the third party AI tools nor Xakia may train models on customer inputs or outputs.
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.
Dazychain's pricing page lists three plans per user per month, Launch at $105, Scale at $130 and Optimize at $160. A currency selector offers Australian dollars, United States dollars, euros and pounds, and the figures carry a bare dollar sign. Launch carries no implementation fee. Scale offers customized configuration and implementation as a $5,000 option, and Optimize lists it at $5,000, while the FAQ says implementation is completely free. Reconfiguration is a professional services fee on the lower plans, and Optimize includes one each year. A feature table of about forty rows splits matter management, documents, spend, collaboration, AI, workflow, reporting, integrations, security and support by plan, and AI use is capped on Launch and unlimited above it. A 14 day trial starts from a sign up form, followed by workspace setup and an hour of training. The FAQ sets a 12 month minimum term and says Dazychain does not usually offer pilots.
The interactive pricing schedule lists Advance at $100, Professional at $125, Enterprise at $155 and All In at $230 per user monthly, with USD as the default currency and alternatives for other regions. Advance adds $50 per user monthly for AI and Professional adds $30, with usage caps. Enterprise includes capped AI and All In removes caps subject to fair use. The linked machine readable schedule still gives lower base prices and older availability descriptions. Onboarding has a separately quoted fee. Monthly service periods require thirty days' nonrenewal notice under the agreement, while annual billing offers a discount. Outside counsel use Connect without a portal or invoice percentage charge.
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.
Corporate legal departments are the market Dazychain is built for, and its FAQ narrows that to small to medium sized in house legal teams. Pricing per user lets a team size itself. Its case studies name MYOB, Equity Trustees, VicReturn, Education Services Australia, SAGE Group, Sage Automation, Perenti and SEE Civil, mostly Australian organizations. The same platform is sold to HR teams under a separate product line, with case types such as investigations, performance management and protected disclosures, and Dazychain describes a front door spanning legal, HR and finance. The system works with any matter type, and the FAQ names charities, non profits, research and utility companies, superannuation and finance, construction and mining among the industries it serves. Dazychain has offices in Melbourne and Boston and hosts data in Australia and the United States. No jurisdictional coverage, team size limit or work the product is not suited to is stated.
In house legal teams of roughly 2 to 200 people are the target, a range Xakia repeats on its pricing page. The platform can be configured in English, Japanese, Spanish, French, Danish, Dutch and Brazilian Portuguese, and the spend module supports all currencies. Xakia has offices in Melbourne, Kansas City and London and says it has many hundreds of clients worldwide. Scope is stated by module, covering matters, intake, contracts, spend, documents, entities, disputes and reporting, with a stakeholder license for non legal users. Customers store data in Australia, Canada, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom or the United States and can set different data locations for different users. Industry segments and practice areas are not described.
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?
Customer information is never used to train external AI models, the AI FAQ says, and the platform uses only the data within the document or matter being worked on, combined with Amazon Bedrock's services. The AI page adds that Bedrock does not use inputs or outputs for training. Each statement covers external models, and Dazychain says nothing about training, tuning or evaluating models of its own or of its parent, Yarris Technologies.
The site links no terms of service, subscription agreement or end user terms, so these commitments sit in the FAQ and the AI page rather than in a contract term. The privacy policy and a sitemap are the only documents linked from its navigation and footer. A customer can switch DazychainAI off for its whole account, so no matter data reaches the models.
Xakia's AI addendum bars training on customer content and permits training on anonymized data derived from it. The addendum, effective 1 February 2026, forms part of the Terms of Service. Section 2.4 says neither Xakia nor its third party AI tools will train any AI model on inputs or outputs, and that using them to improve service features is not training. Section 2.5 lets Xakia collect derived data, defined as anonymous data and statistics derived from inputs.
Xakia may use that data for benchmarking, reports and training its AI features or AI models, and discloses it outside Xakia only in anonymized, aggregated form. Section 1.3 lets a customer opt out of the AI features in its account, and the addendum offers no separate opt out from derived data. Xakia does not name the third party AI tools behind the features, and their processing may run outside the customer's selected data location, as shown in the customer's account.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Amazon Bedrock does not store DazychainAI inputs or outputs, according to Dazychain's AI page, and each model runs in a dedicated AWS account. Saved AI summaries and outcomes become part of the matter record and can be reused. On termination, customer data is kept for the period the customer requests, usually one month, then deleted, with other arrangements available on request. The FAQ gives backup retention of two weeks for the database and unlimited retention for documents in Amazon S3, where documents are encrypted with AES 256.
Dazychain sets no retention period during the subscription, on any plan, for matter records or the AI output saved into them. The audit trail keeps every access and change to documents, matters and deliverables.
Section 2.8 of Xakia's AI addendum sets the retention period for AI prompts and outputs at zero. Because the AI features process data ephemerally, Xakia does not retain inputs or outputs after the output is delivered. Inputs are processed transiently and not stored, and the customer is responsible for capturing anything it needs to keep. Xakia fixes the period rather than letting the customer configure it. It governs the AI features rather than matter data held in the platform, which the Terms of Service keep for 30 days after termination before permanent deletion.
Extracted key terms enter the contract repository only when a user clicks Apply, and then follow the matter data's retention.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The security page states that data segregation is fully supported and tenant aware, and that no user company can access another's information unless permission has been provided, as in a collaboration. Role based access applies, with every access and modification logged. On the AI side the model reaches nothing until a user engages a function, and it works only within the matter or document engaged rather than across the account.
There is no wall at matter level inside a single legal department. Dazychain describes no conflicts management, restricted matters or walled user view. The vendor's FAQ asks whether AI can be restricted by role or matter type and answers only that it can be switched off for the whole account.
Role based permissions control access by user, team or matter, Xakia says sensitive matters can be restricted to specific people, and outside counsel see only what the customer chooses to share through the Connect portal. Single sign on through the customer's own identity provider handles authentication. The product runs its own permission structure rather than applying a document management system's access model at query time, and Xakia does not say whether the AI features apply those permissions when they read documents.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Under the privacy policy, Dazychain discloses personal data to government institutions and authorities only where the law requires, and personal information outside Australia only with consent. It states no commitment to tell the customer when a disclosure is required. Any contractual notice term would sit in the data processing agreements the FAQ says Dazychain signs with customers, and Dazychain issues no transparency report.
The FAQ adds that subprocessors such as AWS and ObjectRocket are bound by contractual controls. The security page says data is not shared with third parties and that users may choose to share information with external lawyers. Hosting spans Australia and the United States on the security page, so matter data can sit under two disclosure regimes, while the privacy policy says Dazychain stores its data on servers in Australia.
Any third party request made directly to Xakia about its processing of the subscriber's personal data must be reported to the subscriber promptly, with details of the request, under the data processing addendum. The commitment applies to the extent the law permits. Third party requests include those from a regulatory authority. Xakia will not respond to such a request without prior notice to the subscriber and a chance to object, except where the law requires it or to confirm that the request relates to that subscriber. The commitment covers personal data under the addendum, and Xakia issues no transparency report.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
DazychainAI works only on the customer's own material. The AI FAQ says it uses only the data within the document or matter being worked on. The features operate on uploaded contracts, matter records, emails and the customer's own contract playbook. The product retrieves no primary law, published precedent, market clause bank or licensed dataset, and names none. The playbook comparison is the one feature that measures a contract against a standard, and that standard is the customer's own playbook rather than content Dazychain supplies.
Intake document generation likewise fills templates the customer's legal team approved in advance, so no outside licensing question arises.
Xakia holds no legal content collection. Its AI features work on the customer's own contracts, documents and invoices in the platform, so the material and its provenance are the customer's. Contract review applies the customer's own playbook and also checks a contract against governing law, market practice and basic drafting standards, without naming where that knowledge comes from. Xakia supplies no licensed legal content and states no license basis or update cadence for the knowledge its model applies.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Dazychain manages matters, documents and spend, and its AI summarizes, finds information in and answers questions about the customer's own documents and compares a contract with the customer's playbook. No case, statute or regulation appears to a user anywhere in the workflow, so a citator sits outside the product. The playbook comparison flags where an external contract departs from the customer's playbook, and keeping the playbook current is the legal team's work.
An in house team's matters, contracts and spend, not case law, are what Xakia manages, so a citator sits outside the product. Its AI reviews and summarizes the customer's own contracts and extracts key terms, and its query tools work across the customer's own files. Keeping contract standards in step with changes in law is the legal team's work, and the AI addendum makes users responsible for checking that output is accurate and up to date.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
The AI FAQ's limitations entry says the AI works only within the matter or document it is engaged on and does not reach data outside that context. It adds that clear, well structured and complete documents give better results. A second entry says extractions are designed to be highly accurate but may require review, and that users validate and edit them before anything is finalized or shared. Neither entry says what the system does when it cannot ground an output, such as a scanned contract or a playbook point with no matching clause.
Outputs carry no confidence indicator, and no state for declining to answer is described. The FAQ asks whether AI can be restricted by role or matter type and answers only that it can be switched off for the whole account. DazychainAI acts only when a user engages it, so every output follows a user's request.
Each value from key terms extraction comes with a confidence indication, the clause it came from and the exact text it relied on. A user reviews and corrects each value before clicking Apply, so nothing reaches the contract repository unchecked. Contract review flags deviations from the playbook for a lawyer to decide, and the generated query remains visible for correction and reuse. Xakia describes no path for declining a request when a document holds no answer, such as a key term the contract does not contain.
The AI addendum tells users to validate or ignore output using their own professional judgment, because it may not be accurate or up to date.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
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 Dazychain or its parent Yarris. DazychainAI summarizes and answers questions about the customer's own matter documents rather than producing court filings.
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 Xakia. Xakia's AI produces contract redlines, summaries and extracted terms from the customer's own documents rather than court filings.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Dazychain names no bar authority, conduct rule or ethics opinion, and maps no guidance to a jurisdiction. Its compliance material covers data protection, running to the Australian Privacy Act 1988 and related state laws, GDPR, ISO 27001 and SOC 2. One feature touches professional responsibility directly. Business users who are not lawyers can complete an intake form that generates a finished document, such as a nondisclosure agreement, from a template approved in advance.
Dazychain says nothing about the legal department's duties when it approves such a template or lets the document go out without review. DazychainAI's limits, such as acting only when a user clicks and only inside one matter, are presented as security and data controls rather than tied to a lawyer's duty of competence or supervision.
Professional duties appear in the AI addendum in general terms. It requires the AI features to be used only by or under the direct supervision of legal practitioners in accordance with applicable professional conduct rules. It also bars automated decisions with legal or similarly significant effects on individuals without proper human review in compliance with applicable professional ethics, guidelines and rules. Neither the addendum nor Xakia's site names a bar opinion, such as ABA Formal Opinion 512, or guidance from the Law Council of Australia or a state law society, in Xakia's home market. Xakia's in house hub covers evaluating matter management software and legal operations practice.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Dazychain carries spend and budget management, invoice review workflows, spend analytics, schedules of rates and budget tracking for what the department pays its external law firms. The AI material says the platform helps lawyers save time, removes friction from drafting, reporting and summarization, and lets teams get work done in a fraction of the time, with no figure attached. Dazychain draws no link between that time saved and what outside firms bill.
The matter record does not mark which summaries or playbook comparisons the model produced, either in the matter or in reports to the business. Invoice review runs as a workflow beside the department's schedules of rates and budgets.
Xakia's spend module is the payer's record of outside counsel fees. Outside firms accept work, update matter details and submit invoices through the Connect portal, which they use at no charge, and the legal team tracks spend against matter budgets in any currency. Xakia sets no limits on the number of firms, invoices or spend managed. It takes no percentage of invoices, which it calls a clip of the ticket, so its revenue does not grow with a customer's legal spend.
Budget tracking compares forecasts with spend to reduce overspend. AI invoice review now checks billing rules and discrepancies in totals, tax and vendor details; reviewers waive or act on findings. How firms bill AI assisted work is left to the customer's own billing terms.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
Application and file hosting sits with Amazon in Australia and the United States, with the database at Object Rocket and AI on Amazon Bedrock, as the security and AI pages describe. Each model runs in a dedicated AWS account with no storage of inputs or outputs. The FAQ says all subprocessors, such as AWS, ObjectRocket, CloudFront and SIEM providers, are bound by contractual controls, and refers to data processing agreements signed with each customer.
The site carries no subprocessor list or agreement. Bedrock hosts models from several makers and Dazychain names none, so the model that reads a contract is unidentified. Dazychain offers no summary written for a legal department to pass to its business, auditors or regulators.
A processor schedule identifies the country and purpose of providers including ChurnZero, HubSpot, Intercom, Microsoft, Stripe, Twilio and Xero. The DPA, AI addendum and security controls are available for diligence, while the ISO certificate, penetration test attestation and SOC 2 report require a request. No AI model provider is identified in the processor schedule despite third party model use under the addendum. Matter restrictions and the limited Connect view control disclosure to external firms, but do not by themselves establish compliance with every client's AI requirements.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
The security page says every access to the platform and every modification to legal documents, matters and deliverables is logged and preserved, as a safeguard against unauthorized activity. Audit trails and activity tracking appear as an included feature on all three plans, alongside exportable reports and dashboards, so an exportable record of what happened to a matter exists. The log does not mark which summaries, extractions or playbook comparisons came from the model rather than a person.
Saved AI summaries and outcomes stay in the matter record, where each later change is logged. No model or version is attached to any output, and Dazychain offers no guidance or template for disclosing AI use to a court, regulator or client.
Parts of the record a court or client might ask for are kept. Extracted key terms carry the clause they came from and the exact text relied on, and reach the contract repository only after a user reviews them and clicks Apply. Xakia's AI page says each decision a user takes on an invoice review finding lands in the audit trail. The platform also records matter activity, intake routing and spend against each matter. No export ties an AI output to the model used, and no model is named.
Xakia's output is internal records, contracts and reporting rather than court filings, so a judicial order on AI disclosure is less likely to reach it.
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.
- AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
- Primary Law Corpus Provenance
- Good Law Verification
In summary
Dazychain
Dazychain is matter management software for small to medium in house legal teams from Yarris Technologies of Melbourne, with an office in Boston. Requests arrive through intake forms, Outlook or Gmail and become matters with workflows, tasks, due dates and approvals. Document and contract management with Word editing, client and law firm portals, spend tracking and dashboards sit around it. The AI Legal Index finds that DazychainAI summarizes, finds information, answers questions over documents and compares contracts with a playbook when a user asks. Three plans run from $105 to $160 per user a month, and customers include MYOB, Equity Trustees and Perenti. Dazychain states ISO 27001 and SOC 2 and hosts data in Australia and the United States.
Xakia
Xakia, founded in 2016 in Melbourne, is a matter management and legal operations platform for in house teams of roughly 2 to 200, with offices in Kansas City and London. It covers matters, intake and triage, contracts, spend and budgets, documents, entities, disputes and reporting, with the Connect portal for outside counsel. According to the AI Legal Index, Xakia AI reviews and redlines contracts, summarizes them, extracts key terms and powers Smart Search, as an add on below the Enterprise plan. Plans run from $100 to $230 per user a month, and data sits on Microsoft Azure in one of five countries the customer chooses. Xakia holds ISO 27001:2022 and SOC 2 Type 2 certification and can be configured in seven languages.
Questions buyers ask
Dazychain vs Xakia: which is better for a small in house legal team?
Dazychain suits a team that wants AI held inside one matter at a time, run on Amazon Bedrock in Australia or the United States, with matter dashboards for reporting to the business. Xakia suits a team that wants AI limits written into its contract, key terms extraction with a confidence score and source clause, and seven interface languages. Both list per user prices. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 9, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does Xakia train AI on customer data?
Not on the data itself. Xakia's AI addendum, effective 1 February 2026, says neither Xakia nor its third party AI tools will train any AI model on inputs or outputs. Section 2.5 lets Xakia collect anonymous data and statistics derived from inputs and use them for benchmarking, reports and training its AI features or models. Xakia discloses that data outside the company only in anonymized, aggregated form, and a customer can opt out of the AI features in its account. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 9, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Can Dazychain's AI be turned off?
Yes. Dazychain's FAQ says AI can be completely turned off for an account. It accesses data only when a user actively engages a function, such as clicking a button, and works only inside the matter or document it was engaged on. Asked whether AI can be restricted by role or matter type, the FAQ answers only with the account wide switch. Turning the AI off leaves the matter management system running. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 9, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How much do Dazychain and Xakia cost?
Dazychain lists Launch at $105, Scale at $130 and Optimize at $160 per user a month, with a currency selector, a $5,000 implementation option on the upper plans and a 14 day trial. Xakia lists Advance at $100, Professional at $125, Enterprise at $155 and All In at $230 per user a month, month to month or annual. AI is an add on below Enterprise, and Xakia also offers a 14 day trial. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 9, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
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.
Xakia's AI addendum lets Xakia train its AI features on anonymized data and statistics derived from customer inputs, and AI processing may run outside the data location the customer selects, as shown in the account. Dazychain's AI commitments sit in its FAQ and AI page rather than a published contract, and its ISO 27001 claim cites the 2013 edition. Dazychain's prices carry a bare dollar sign beside a currency selector. Xakia's AI page describes invoice review as live, while its plan comparison lists it as coming soon. Neither vendor reviewed this page.