eBrevia vs Luminance: how they compare in 2026
eBrevia and Luminance both make agreement portfolios useful beyond storage, combining AI analysis with contract review and business workflows. eBrevia's Contract Analyzer provides prepared extraction fields, optional customization, reviewer assignments, and structured exports. Lens answers additional questions, and DraftPro turns stored agreements into a clause library for Word revision. Luminance emphasizes carrying negotiation history and accepted positions into new deals, then circulating contract intelligence across commercial teams. Its negotiation tools combine precedent, playbooks, and structured checklists with controlled business review. eBrevia is relevant when a law firm or legal department needs to conduct a defined review project and move its results into other systems. Luminance offers a broader enterprise orientation when past concessions, portfolio knowledge, and connected contract processes are intended to inform the next negotiation and the departments acting on it.
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.
AI drives eBrevia's extraction, contract questions, and suggested revisions. Contract Analyzer applies more than 700 prepared fields and supports optional custom extraction, while Lens answers questions without requiring a new model for each request. DraftPro applies playbooks and draws clauses from previous agreements to assist Word editing. Those capabilities sit alongside a conventional operating layer in Command: a repository, contract requests, assignees, priorities, due dates, and status changes. Removing AI would remove the intelligence and drafting functions, but the surrounding storage and contract work system would still have functions. The suite therefore combines an AI engine with ongoing agreement administration.
Luminance uses models throughout contract interpretation, negotiation and portfolio analysis. Luna Crescent specializes in extraction, classification and other repetitive legal tasks, while additional models handle work that benefits from broader generative capabilities. A routing layer selects the model for each task, and separate validation models test important answers. The repository connects agreements and amendments into context for later questions, and negotiation uses prior concessions and approved positions to generate markups. Workflows turn those findings into contract actions across legal and business teams. The central service depends on model generated understanding of contractual language and relationships, rather than a template library alone.
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.
Contract Analyzer presents extracted information beside the agreement and lets a reviewer jump from a result to the exact source text. Lens uses the same contract material for contextual answers, and DraftPro draws reusable clauses from agreements already in the repository. Users can validate, annotate, or correct results before exporting them. This gives contract findings a traceable basis, rather than treating generated language as an unsupported conclusion. Published review speed and accuracy claims are not accompanied by a reproducible evaluation dataset or a detailed failure analysis. The source links concern agreements, not a verified collection of judicial authority.
Luna Crescent is tested against ContractIQ Bench, with 189,000 manually annotated data points covering provisions such as liability caps, termination rights and confidentiality. Testing includes unseen concepts and blind review by legal specialists. Luminance claims 5 percent higher accuracy than leading general models without an absolute result or named comparators. Separate validation checks important outputs against model agreement, source evidence and task requirements. A failed check can lead to a retry and a visible request for human review. The model is also trained to identify missing information rather than fill the gap. Public sample tasks, a reproducible evaluation set and detailed error rates are not available.
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.
DraftPro proposes redlines after applying the legal team's playbook, but the lawyer chooses which revisions enter the Word file. The review explains whether a provision passes or fails the chosen standard and allows navigation to the relevant clause. Contract Analyzer separately supports reviewer assignments, progress states, annotations, and quality assurance workflows. Command tracks ownership and activity as an agreement moves through drafting, review, negotiation, and signature. These are practical review surfaces and responsibilities. The product does not describe a confidence based stopping rule, an automatic route for every uncertain answer, or a recovery procedure after an incorrect result has been accepted.
Business users can generate and progress routine agreements under legal approved templates and role permissions, with nonstandard terms routed to legal. Proposed negotiation language appears in Word. For important AI outputs, a separate model or panel checks agreement, supporting evidence and task requirements. Every required critic check must pass; a failed check prompts another attempt using the feedback, followed by a review flag if the problem persists. Customer decisions and workflow actions retain an audit trail. The agreement requires manual interpretation of all results, and the AI terms require interfaces that support human oversight of the system's operation and limitations.
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.
Named users describe concrete work with eBrevia. McDermott, Will & Emery attributes its ability to meet difficult review deadlines to the product. MUFG describes using custom trainable AI across different review needs, while Morris, Manning & Martin connects it with reducing data handling so lawyers can focus on analysis. Baker McKenzie discusses international deals, and Best World Group describes visibility across regional contracts. The product also advertises review time reductions of 30 to 90 percent. These accounts establish deployed legal and business uses, but the cited figures are not tied to a dated study with a reproducible measurement method.
Current customer examples tie specific organizations to contracting work. AMD reports finding precedent language in under two minutes, Emma Sleep reports twice as many contracts reviewed per quarter, and Avianca claims 90 percent less document review time. Repository examples include Yokogawa's 99 percent faster response to business questions and Trench Group's two hour tariff analysis, compared with two weeks and about €11,000. Workflow examples include ProSapient reducing eight steps to three and Hitachi moving from NDA generation to signature in under five minutes. These are vendor presented customer results, without a common study protocol or dated measurement period. The current customer base exceeds 1,000 enterprises.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
The service agreement treats uploaded Licensee Data as confidential and restricts disclosure to authorized recipients who need the information and carry matching confidentiality duties. It permits injunctive relief for a breach and requires steps to recover improperly disclosed material. Live customer data is deleted at termination or written request, with encrypted backups and legal retention exceptions. Public marketing promises no training on client data, while the incorporated Privacy Notice permits service personal data to support product improvement. The contract does not expressly exclude model training from that permission. Attorney client privilege, matter barriers, and downstream model provider retention receive no specific public treatment.
Each customer has an isolated environment with separate workloads, data and layered access controls. The agreement treats private learning and outputs as customer property and confidential information, and limits support access to service delivery. It also licenses customer data for product improvements, private learning and usage insights; there is no general prohibition on learning from customer content. Private learning stays with that customer, while nonidentifying usage insights can be retained for improvement. Inputs sent to external models are permitted disclosures directed by the customer. Attorney client privilege and work product are not directly protected by a specific clause, and provider retention limits are not stated in the model list.
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.
eBrevia's service agreement defines its role as a tool for reviewing, summarizing, and managing legal material, expressly excluding replacement of legal advice. The customer remains responsible for decisions based on generated information. Authorized users include employees, attorneys, paralegals, and professional staff performing legal or related services. A licensee may share analysis with its clients, but direct client access requires a separate license. DraftPro reinforces lawyer control over proposed changes. These boundaries identify the product's professional role without setting out jurisdiction specific eligibility rules or a detailed account of how a firm should satisfy competence, supervision, and client consent duties.
The master agreement prohibits treating the product as legal advice or a substitute for relevant independent or internal legal advice. All results require manual interpretation, and customers must tell third party users about those limits. AI Systems Terms add human oversight duties and describe the intended use as legal document analysis, research, contract analytics and legal workflows. The product also serves procurement, finance, sales and other business functions, with exceptions routed to legal. Specific lawyer competence procedures and supported jurisdiction boundaries are not stated. The license permits professional services firms to use the software when serving their own clients.
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.
eBrevia offers Legal Advisory services covering AI use case selection, secure architecture, governance mapping, pilot evaluation, and adoption. Those services describe work for a customer's rollout, rather than a published policy governing eBrevia's own model development. Its leadership materials identify technical responsibility for the AI platforms, and its security program concerns protection of information. No public framework describes model release approval, bias evaluation, or results across languages and agreement types. Customer playbooks specify review positions, but they do not reveal how the vendor evaluates errors or uneven performance before introducing changes to its underlying AI.
AI Systems Terms require ongoing risk management, records of risks and tests, and data governance that considers bias, representativeness and missing data. The model evaluation process includes task benchmarks, complete workflow testing through ALumNI, blind expert review and a human sign off before a reversible production rollout. Luna Crescent releases must clear ContractIQ Bench and expert review before replacing a current version. These controls extend beyond the information security program and address model behavior before release. An individually accountable AI governance owner and results showing uneven performance across matter types, parties or populations are not specified.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
The customer agreement provides deletion of live Licensee Data at termination or on written request, while allowing encrypted backup copies for six months and retention required by law. The Privacy Notice supplies a similar rule for service personal data. Contract Analyzer describes encryption in transit and storage, and the wider platform offers access controls for enterprise use. Public materials also describe monitoring and independent security audits. They do not name a complete current subprocessor chain or establish a specific incident notification deadline. The service terms exclude protected health information, payment card data, and certain financial personal information from authorized uploads.
Customers can delete data during use, with removal from active stores within 30 days and backups within a further 30 days; faster deletion can be requested. Routine backups occur every 24 hours, remain within the hosting region and are kept for 14 to 28 days under the master agreement. Access follows least privilege, with multifactor authentication, optional single sign on and isolated customer workloads. The subprocessor list names hosting, model, support and operations services. New providers require 30 days notice and allow 15 days to object. The data agreement requires notice of a personal data breach within 24 hours, mitigation and information about the affected records and likely consequences.
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.
The service agreement provides an intellectual property indemnity for claims that eBrevia's technology infringes third party rights, subject to a customer modification exclusion. That indemnity is expressly outside the general liability limit. Ordinary direct damages are capped at fees paid during the preceding 12 months, with consequential losses excluded and a one year limit for bringing an action. Separate exceptions cover specified personal injury, misconduct, and fraud claims. The functionality commitment uses commercially reasonable efforts, while accuracy and completeness are disclaimed. These terms provide defined recourse for technology infringement, but no specific indemnity or correctness warranty for generated legal output.
The October 2026 master agreement provides an IP indemnity for the product, with exclusions for unauthorized combinations, continued infringing use and unsupported versions. A performance warranty allows correction, replacement or a refund of unused prepaid fees. General liability is capped at the previous 12 months' fees, rising to three times that amount for specified data obligations. Confidentiality and IP ownership breaches are outside those caps, and certain legally nonexcludable losses remain protected. Claims require notice within nine months. The agreement separately disclaims losses caused by output errors or omissions and treats customer directed model transmissions as permitted disclosures. No insurance commitment is specified.
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.
DraftPro works inside Word and obtains clause language from the licensed eBrevia repository; users inspect suggestions and apply selected redlines to the draft. Connect handles incoming agreements and pushes extracted data into downstream systems. Its listed connections include iManage, NetDocuments, HighQ, Relativity, Salesforce, SharePoint, Microsoft applications, and reporting tools. Described operations include tagging files, assigning employees, validating data across systems, and generating reports. This establishes movement into and out of the contract platform. The public descriptions do not provide connector specific field mappings, permission synchronization rules, or installation procedures showing what each firm must configure.
Negotiation generates context based markups directly in Microsoft Word using approved language, earlier concessions and comparable agreements. The workflow product connects contract actions, tasks and approvals across business teams and lets other assistants access contract capabilities through MCP. Users can initiate analysis, summaries and reviews from connected applications. The platform also names Outlook, DocuSign and LexisNexis connections. Its technical terms allow uploads from document management systems and virtual data rooms. Connector specific configuration, permission inheritance and the exact fields moving in each direction are not explained. These connections bring AI contract work into existing applications while retaining the central agreement record.
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.
eBrevia operates as a hosted contract platform with a Word add in connected to the licensed environment. Its Privacy Notice says hosting defaults to the United States unless the customer instructs otherwise, while also identifying facilities across several continents. The same notice explains that business processes cross borders and processing cannot always be confined to the individual's country. No public tier matrix identifies the alternative regions available for every product, and no separate location is supplied for each generative model task. A hosting instruction therefore provides some regional control without a complete account of storage, processing, and provider locations.
The standard hosted product runs in an isolated customer environment on AWS. Customers choose an available AWS data center through the order form, with backups in the same region and recovery objectives of 24 hours for a complete primary data center failure. Additional inference can run on AWS, Azure or Google infrastructure. Azure and Google processing follows an EU or UK hosting choice; other hosting choices use an unspecified international location. Direct OpenAI API processing takes place in the United States. The complete available hosting region list and routing of each model task are not specified, and a storage choice alone does not fix every processing location.
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.
eBrevia states that it is independently certified for SOC 1 and SOC 2, and Contract Analyzer specifically names SOC 2 Type II infrastructure. The security description refers to continuing audits and monitoring, encryption, and controls for authorized access. It also claims GDPR and HIPAA compliance, which are separate from a disclosed audit report. No accessible report supplies the audit period, exceptions, or precise service scope. The public customer agreement additionally restricts protected health information, so the HIPAA marketing statement does not override that upload restriction or establish that a customer has an applicable business associate agreement.
ISO 27001:2022 covers the information security management system for development, sales, support and operation, including the Cambridge technical headquarters, remote workers and cloud processing. SOC 2 Type II examinations cover security, availability and confidentiality, alongside independent penetration tests. Contractual measures include encrypted storage and transport, nightly operating system updates, daily backups, least privilege access and a dedicated data protection officer. Senior leaders review the security program quarterly, and a security advisory board supports it. Audit information and certificates are available through the contractual review process. The auditor names, report dates and examination periods are not specified in the current assurance statements.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
The suite distinguishes structured extraction from Lens, its generative layer for questions across contract material. Contract Analyzer has prepared fields and optional custom models, while DraftPro combines AI classification, playbook review, and clause reuse. eBrevia describes its own long development history in machine learning and natural language processing, but does not identify the foundation model providers serving current Lens or DraftPro requests. No version inventory, provider retention arrangement, or notification commitment for model changes is published in the product and contract materials. Named business integrations identify connected applications, not the model services that may process a customer's agreement.
Luna Crescent is a family of proprietary legal models developed from a general foundation model and specialist contract training. It works alongside other models selected by task through benchmarks and expert review. The subprocessor register identifies AWS, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud for inference inside cloud environments, plus direct OpenAI API processing in the United States. The AI terms distinguish models hosted within infrastructure from requests sent to an external model provider. New subprocessors require advance notice, but the individual foundation models, versions and task routing remain unspecified. No equivalent notice commitment covers every model substitution within an existing provider.
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.
eBrevia quotes review projects according to contract volume, review scope, and required capabilities. Its service agreement sets fees and access in a proposal and defines a processed Document as no more than 300 pages. The default contract period is one year with annual renewal unless the proposal changes it, and nonrenewal requires 30 days' notice. Contract Analyzer, DraftPro, and Connect can form part of the licensed services. No numeric subscription rate or implementation charge is supplied publicly. Training and support appear within the service definition, but their inclusion and any additional cost depend on the negotiated proposal.
Subscription allowances measure the number of files held in the product, and each version counts as a separate document. Annual uploads are subject to a fair use ceiling of twice the contracted document allowance, regardless of later deletion. Fees, payment timing and the initial term are set in the order form rather than a public rate table. Renewal ordinarily repeats the initial term unless either party gives 90 days notice. The standard increase ceiling is the annual Consumer Prices Index change plus three percentage points, unless the order form says otherwise. Assisted implementation and extra module prices are not specified.
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.
The product addresses law firms, corporate legal departments, financial institutions, and audit or consulting teams. Law firm workflows include mergers and acquisitions diligence, bankruptcy and financing review, and compliance reporting. Contract Analyzer also supports leases, repapering, and migration of agreement data. DraftPro covers repeat commercial, employment, privacy, technology, finance, real estate, and corporate agreements, with sample playbooks for selected types and custom positions for others. Command extends contract information to procurement, sales, finance, and related business teams. Coverage is described through these tasks and examples, without a complete list of supported jurisdictions or performance boundaries for each language.
Legal, procurement, finance, sales, executive and HR teams use negotiation, repository analysis and workflows across commercial agreements. The license also permits professional services organizations to use the product for their clients and includes terms for United States government customers. The legal suite defines Corporate, Diligence and Discovery applications, while the AI terms describe legal document analysis, research, analytics and related legal workflows. Examples span NDA creation, supplier review, liability positions, tariffs and renewal obligations. Precise firm size segments, supported research jurisdictions, language limits and excluded practice areas are not stated. Current product positioning extends across an enterprise's contract work.
The 12 legal signals, side by side
Recorded rather than graded. These are the questions a practitioner has to answer before a tool touches a client matter, and the answers are taken from public material only.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
The service agreement incorporates the Privacy Notice for uploaded material and service personal data. That notice permits personal information to support developing and improving products and services, without expressly excluding model training from that permission. The scope is personal data covered by the notice, not an assertion that every uploaded agreement is used for training. Public event material separately promises no training on client data, but a matching prohibition does not appear in the customer contract.
The master agreement licenses customer data for product improvements, private learning, usage insights and outputs. Private learning means recognizing new clauses and contract types from customer training; it belongs to the customer, remains confidential and is not shared across customers. Nonidentifying usage insights may be retained indefinitely for improvement. No general training prohibition overrides those rights. Inputs used with additional model features may also be transmitted to the named provider at the customer's direction.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
The customer can instruct eBrevia in writing to delete live Licensee Data, and termination also triggers that deletion duty. The Privacy Notice similarly permits removal of personal data from live services on request. Encrypted backups may remain for six months, and legal retention requirements create an exception. This is control through a contractual instruction, rather than a published retention slider. No mode promises that prompts and generated answers are never retained during processing.
Customers can delete data at any time. Active data stores remove it within 30 days, with backup removal within a further 30 days and expedited deletion available on request. The agreement also provides a 30 day period for retrieving and deleting data after the term ends. Routine backups have a separate 14 to 28 day retention period. No setting guarantees zero retention across application records, logs and external model processing.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
DraftPro ties user access to the licensed eBrevia environment and can filter clause material by project, matter, contract type, or jurisdiction. Contract Analyzer supports assignments and enterprise access controls. Those features do not establish that retrieval enforces a firm's ethical walls or inherits the permissions of an upstream document repository. A matter filter organizes material for review; it is not, by itself, a documented security boundary preventing access to another client's information.
Each customer instance isolates workloads and data through logical, technical and access controls. Administrators configure roles, multifactor authentication and single sign on, while support access is limited to service delivery and may follow additional customer policies. The product applies its own access controls around the contract workspace. No current commitment describes inheriting an external document system's permissions at retrieval time or enforcing a law firm's matter level ethical walls.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
The Privacy Notice allows disclosure in response to an information request when eBrevia determines that law, regulation, or legal process permits or requires it. It also covers disclosures to protect rights and defend legal claims. Neither that provision nor the service agreement commits to informing the customer before producing material, and no transparency report is supplied. The confidentiality clause limits ordinary sharing but does not add a separate notice procedure for compulsory demands.
The confidentiality clause requires notice of legally required disclosure where lawful, giving the customer a reasonable opportunity to respond. Luminance must cooperate with reasonable efforts to resist, limit or delay disclosure at the customer's expense. A separate clause also requires prompt notice and cooperation when responding to a subpoena or judicial, administrative or arbitral order. No aggregate transparency report is specified.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
eBrevia's contract answers and clause library derive from agreements supplied to its repository. Lens asks questions of that material, while DraftPro reuses provisions from earlier contracts with filters for the current context. The service terms require the customer to hold the rights needed for uploaded material. No separate primary law collection, publisher license, or legal update schedule is described. Contract source traceability therefore establishes where an agreement answer came from, rather than the provenance of external legal authority.
Contract answers draw on customer agreements, amendments, negotiation history and the platform's standard legal concepts and clauses. Luna Crescent separately learns from more than 3.4 million proprietary legal data points, with an evaluation set of 189,000 annotated points. The customer retains its data and private learning. The sources and rights behind the general training collection, and any primary law collection used for legal research, are not identified individually or accompanied by an update schedule.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
A reviewer can follow an extracted provision back to the contract and assess it against a playbook. Neither that process nor a Lens answer checks whether a judicial authority has later been reversed or limited. The products focus on contract language, obligations, and company positions, with no named citator or subsequent treatment mechanism. A governing law field identifies a contract term; it does not establish that the law applied to the agreement remains current.
Negotiation and repository answers are grounded in contracts, amendments and earlier agreed positions. The AI terms also include legal research among the product's intended functions. No named commercial citator, subsequent history calculation or treatment flag accompanies that research description. Source grounded validation checks whether a response follows the supplied evidence, which is separate from checking whether a legal authority remains valid.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Lens is described as producing contextual answers linked to contract material, but no public example specifies what it returns when the agreement cannot support an answer. DraftPro's pass or fail result concerns compliance with a chosen playbook, not uncertainty in the model's interpretation. Users can correct extraction, add missing clauses, and reject revisions. Those review controls leave room for human judgment without defining an automatic refusal or abstention path for unsupported output.
Luna Crescent is trained to identify information that is absent from the contract rather than invent it. Differential Validation separately checks important responses through independent model agreement or a source grounded critic. A failed check can trigger a retry using the identified problem; continued failure results in a review flag. The current explanation describes those behaviors without a public evaluation of their refusal rate or missed unsupported answers.
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 has no entry naming eBrevia or e Brevia. The database records court decisions involving hallucinated AI material and identifies tools when the proceedings do so. eBrevia mainly analyzes agreements and proposes contract language, rather than preparing briefs from judicial authorities. That focus does not make its output infallible, and the absence of a named court case is not a test of extraction accuracy or drafting quality.
The AI Hallucination Cases database contains no court or disciplinary entry naming Luminance as the source of fabricated legal citations as of October 15, 2026. Luminance's principal workflows concern contracts, but its AI terms also include legal research. The AI Systems Terms require human oversight, and the master agreement assigns the customer responsibility for manually interpreting and using output, including checking its relevance to the particular legal task.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
The service agreement separates software assistance from legal advice and places responsibility for decisions with the customer. DraftPro also keeps proposed changes subject to lawyer approval. These provisions establish a supervised product role, but no named bar opinion or jurisdiction specific ethics mapping accompanies them. The public materials do not connect use of Lens, shared client material, or automated contract revisions with particular duties of competence, confidentiality, disclosure, or supervision under a professional rule.
Professional services customers can identify mandatory requirements imposed on technology providers by their governing body before the order is signed. The master agreement commits Luminance to meet those requirements when compatible with applicable law, and permits regulatory access and assistance in specified circumstances. All output still requires manual interpretation. The agreement does not map these commitments to a named bar opinion or a particular lawyer ethics rule.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
eBrevia markets reduced review time and cost to law firms as well as corporate buyers. Its law firm use cases include diligence, financing review, and compliance reports, and the customer license expressly permits sharing resulting analysis with clients. These uses place the product inside legal service delivery where efficiency can affect a bill. The public product and contract materials do not explain how lawyers should record saved time, adjust billed hours, or disclose an AI related charge.
Luminance licenses its product both for internal business work and for services delivered to clients. Current customer examples include faster precedent retrieval, shorter review and fewer workflow steps, while corporate deployments also report operational savings. The contract permits customers to earn revenue from the resulting output. No guidance connects the time saved to a law firm's client invoice, and the workflow audit trail is not presented as a legal time billing record.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The service agreement, Privacy Notice, and security statements provide general information about confidentiality, retention, and permitted data. They do not include a current named model provider chain, a complete subprocessor register, or a client disclosure package for outside counsel use. Lists of supported applications describe integrations rather than organizations processing data on eBrevia's behalf. A firm can use the public contract material in diligence, but it does not resolve a client's AI specific notification requirements.
The current list identifies AWS, Azure, Google Cloud and OpenAI for hosting or inference, plus named support and operations providers. It distinguishes processing inside cloud infrastructure from inputs sent directly to OpenAI and states broad processing locations. The data agreement requires 30 days advance notice of a provider change, with 15 days for objections. No separate client consent or outside counsel AI disclosure template accompanies the legal suite.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Contract Analyzer retains extracted terms beside source language and supports review status, annotations, and exported reports. DraftPro leaves selected revisions visible as Word redlines, while Command records contract activity and status changes. Those elements can help reconstruct what was reviewed. No public export combines the generating model, the full set of material used for an answer, and a named person's verification in one certificate. Contract analysis records therefore cover only part of a filing disclosure.
Workflows keep an audit trail of actions and decisions, and the AI terms require proportionate event logs retained for the agreement's duration. Important responses can carry a validation result or a request for review, with contract evidence behind the answer. The legal agreement also provides assistance to regulators. A per document export combining the exact model used, retrieved sources and a person's verification is not specified.
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.
- Good Law Verification
Which one fits
Choose eBrevia if
- The purchase begins with a defined diligence, repapering, or lease review project.
- A team needs source linked extraction, reviewer assignments, and exportable structured findings.
- Drafting should draw on repository clauses filtered by matter or jurisdiction.
Choose Luminance if
- Prior concessions and the same counterparty's history should inform each new negotiation.
- Contract intelligence needs to reach procurement, finance, sales, and other business teams.
- Approved standards and connected workflows should link review with the wider contract lifecycle.
In summary
eBrevia
eBrevia connects bulk analysis with the language a lawyer needs for a new draft. DraftPro assembles clauses from the repository and filters them by context, contract type, project, matter, or jurisdiction. That contextual reuse is a product finding emphasized by the AI Legal Index. Contract Analyzer supplies source linked extraction and reviewer controls, while Lens handles additional questions. Command and Connect add administration of contract work and movement of data to other applications.
Luminance
Luminance brings earlier liability positions, concessions, and accepted wording into incoming negotiations, including prior dealings with the same counterparty. The AI Legal Index highlights how that history can inform Word markups even before every position has been captured in a formal playbook. Structured checklists apply approved standards, and business users work within legal's permissions. Negotiation sits alongside portfolio intelligence and connected workflows used across commercial departments.
Questions buyers ask
How can eBrevia address a new question during diligence?
Lens accepts natural language questions across the contract set without requiring a new extraction model. It works alongside the prepared fields and retains access to the underlying agreement language. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Can Luminance use negotiation history when a playbook is incomplete?
Yes. Its negotiation product describes creating Word markups from relevant precedent and context even where a formal playbook position does not yet exist. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What helps an eBrevia reviewer find an appropriate prior clause?
DraftPro's library is built from stored agreements and can be filtered by context, contract type, project, matter, or jurisdiction. The reviewer chooses the language to insert or replace in Word. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Do both products extend beyond a one time review?
Yes. eBrevia Command adds ongoing contract requests, ownership, and status management. Luminance combines negotiation with portfolio intelligence and workflows spanning the agreement lifecycle. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 16, 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.
Both offerings now extend beyond their historical analysis functions. The distinction here concerns the review project, the context reused during negotiation, and the surrounding business workflow rather than treating either as a standalone extraction utility.