Harvey vs Legora: how they compare in 2026
This is the most watched head to head in legal AI, and on published evidence it is not a close one. The gap is concentrated in what each vendor is willing to publish. Legora's product story is genuinely distinctive: a shared workspace where the matter team and the AI work in the same place. It also publishes its contract documents openly rather than hiding behind a trust page. On citation accuracy the gap has narrowed without closing. In September 2026 Legora described how its rebuilt research layer and its own citator work, still in limited beta and with no measurement published, while Harvey submitted to an outside evaluator. On oversight, Legora asserts the principle and does not describe the mechanism. Harvey also names its model providers and documents its document management integrations at the level an administrator can act on. Harvey is the better documented vendor. Legora may still be the better tool for how your team actually works.
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.
Agents, Vault review tables, Knowledge research, Contract Intelligence review, Intake triage and Horizon Scanning all produce their output with language models. No document management or workflow system sits underneath that a firm would buy on its own. Vault stores matter documents, and its purpose is extraction, comparison and reporting across them.
Everything Legora sells is generative. The Agent plans and executes legal work across the platform's tools, Tabular Review extracts answers from each document into a grid, research answers questions across jurisdictions, and drafting runs in Word, Outlook and the built in editor. An orchestration layer handles tool routing, memory, model selection and guardrails beneath them. Without the models there is no product left to sell.
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.
In the February 2025 Vals Legal AI Report, a third party benchmark set against a lawyer baseline, Harvey Assistant was tested on six tasks. Its results ranged from 65.0 to 94.8 percent, and it beat the lawyer baseline on five. Document question answering reached 94.8 percent, 24.7 points above the baseline, with responses under a minute. Answers on scanned and badly formatted court transcripts reached 77.8 percent, 24.1 points above it. That study measured task accuracy rather than citation validity, and Harvey did not enter the later Vals study of citation authority. BigLaw Bench, Harvey's own benchmark, publishes its task categories and judging criteria on a public repository, with hallucination and source results by model. It defines a hallucination as a factual claim that a source of truth can disprove and tracks reasoning errors apart. Harvey reports that its systems hallucinate less often than the foundation models on legal tasks while giving longer answers. Every agent claim links to the source passage behind it, and the full BigLaw Bench dataset is available on request.
Each cell in Tabular Review expands to its reasoning and the source documents behind it, and Portal answers carry links back to the exact source. Legal research works several sources in parallel, ranks them by authority and checks each finding against primary law before the answer returns. The rebuilt research layer announced on 14 September 2026 runs on an ontology of the law that maps how authorities rank and relate, including amendments and temporal validity. Its AI native citator follows a standard set and audited by former publisher attorney editors. Legora says it has cataloged more than 50 ways AI fails at legal research without publishing the list. The layer is in limited beta, and no accuracy figure, evaluation framework or hallucination rate is published.
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.
Agents show their plan before they run, so a lawyer can adjust the scope and approve the work before Harvey begins. While an agent works, Harvey brings the lawyer back in when a judgment call is needed, logs every step and cites a source for every claim. Intake applies routing rules the legal team defines to send each request to an approved agent, to Contract Intelligence or to a lawyer. Reports and reviews can run on a schedule, and admins govern access through roles and workspace permissions. The point at which an agent stops on its own, and what Harvey commits to when an agent's work is wrong, are not stated.
The Agent proposes a plan before it acts, carries out the work across documents, data sources and tools, checks whether it met the goal, and delivers work product into the project workspace for the lawyer's review and approval. It can also act without being asked, watching email, documents and projects and starting work when something needs attention. Tabular Review adds Mark as Reviewed, Lock Cells and Review Mode for team review, and full audit trails record every tool call, file access and agent action. ISO 42001 covers the AI management system, with human oversight named as a principle. No threshold at which the Agent stops for a person, and no route after a wrong output, is described.
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.
Customer stories name the firm and give figures. Reed Smith, with about 1,800 lawyers in 34 offices, reports 700 Harvey users a day, 1,400 a month and AI certification for every associate. Repsol's legal division started a pilot in January 2024 with 50 lawyers in 12 jurisdictions and reports cutting the time on one process by more than 90%. CMS reports 95% adoption. Other named customers include A&O Shearman, Gleiss Lutz, Cuatrecasas, Macfarlanes, KKR, PwC and Deutsche Telekom. The figures are usage counts and time savings as each customer reports them, with no stated method for how they were measured.
Legora counts more than 1,800 teams in over 50 markets and 100,000 lawyers on the platform. Named customers include White & Case, Crowell, Accor, Dentons Europe, Trowers & Hamlins and Grant Thornton UK, whose forensic investigations team has a published story. The customers page reports that users see a 25 percent improvement in work quality, that experienced users save 80 percent of non billable hours weekly, and that firms bill $6.4 million more per 100 lawyers a year. None of those figures carries a date, sample or method. An in house study with the analyst Ari Kaplan drew on conversations with 30 customers in nine countries.
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.
Neither Harvey nor its subprocessors may train any AI model on customer content or data, and model providers work under zero data retention. A firm can ask for a bespoke model trained on its own data and used only for that firm. Harvey syncs and enforces the firm's existing ethical wall policies and never creates, modifies or deletes walls, so the walls provider stays the system of record. Workspaces are logically separated, access follows roles, and data is deleted within 30 days of termination. If the law or a court compels disclosure, Harvey gives advance written notice where it is legally permitted. Attorney client privilege and work product are not addressed as such.
The general terms bar Legora from using a subscriber's confidential information to train or fine tune AI models and require the same of its subcontractors. The terms, the data processing agreement and the security measures annex are published in versions for the EU and the United States, and the annex covers least privilege access, personnel confidentiality, authorization controls and retention on customer instruction. Ethical walls and role based access are stated to keep confidential information from crossing matters or projects, on access control built on the Zanzibar authorization model, and engineers reach customer data only with the customer's written approval. Privilege and work product handling are not addressed.
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.
Output is not legal advice and may contain errors, misstatements or gaps, and the Platform Agreement calls the service a research tool. Harvey sells to lawyers, legal departments and professional services firms, and its agent pages leave the judgment on every task with the lawyer. Access credentials belong to one named user and may not be shared. Nothing addresses competence and supervision duties under professional rules, or the jurisdictions where the product may be used.
Legora sells to lawyers, firms and in house teams and describes the product as working with lawyers rather than replacing them, with the Agent's output delivered for a lawyer's review and approval. No position on the advice line, no treatment of competence and supervision duties and no jurisdiction limit appears in the acceptable use policy, the general terms or the product pages.
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.
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 certification covers Harvey's AI management system, and the Statement of Applicability published with it sets out the controls in scope. Its AIUC-1 certification, an AI security and safety standard, was conducted by Schellman and, in Harvey's account, validates its adversarial testing and AI security program. The trust center adds IRAP attestation, an EU AI Act item and AI Governance, AI Monitoring and AI Overview documents, with an AI Acceptable Use Policy among its policies. An AI Policy dated 26 December 2025 commits to testing the accuracy, reliability and suitability of the AI in the service and to change management for continuing legal compliance. No accountable owner is named, and nothing is published about uneven output across matter types or populations.
Legora holds ISO 42001 for its AI management system, independently audited with ongoing surveillance, and publishes what the certification covers: how AI is designed, deployed, supervised and monitored, with human oversight and structured governance as the operating principles. No internal owner of AI governance is named, no results of testing on model behavior before release are published, and nothing covers uneven output across matter types, parties or populations.
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.
Customers choose what to upload, set their own retention policies and can delete data at any time. Within 30 days of termination, Harvey deletes remaining customer data and content unless told otherwise, and the DPA extends return or deletion to every subprocessor. Access runs on role based controls, logical workspace separation, SAML SSO, audit logs and IP allow listing. The Subprocessor List, updated 21 September 2026, names each provider with its purpose and location, and subscribers receive at least 30 days' notice of an addition with a right to object. Under the Security Addendum, Harvey notifies the customer of a security incident without undue delay and within 48 hours. It then reports the incident's nature, the investigation and the mitigation, and keeps relevant logs for at least a year.
The security measures annex sets least privilege and role based access, and centrally stored logs traceable to unique usernames, with security logs kept at least 12 months. It adds data integrity signing, background checks and confidentiality agreements for staff, and retention as the customer instructs. Subscriber environments are logically separated and full production backups run every four hours. The data processing agreement has Legora report a personal data breach within 36 hours and delete or return personal data at the subscriber's choice when it ends. The subprocessor list, last updated 6 July 2026, names each provider with its purpose, data and residency, and a new subprocessor comes with 30 days to object. Penetration tests cover the full platform twice a year.
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 Platform Agreement, last updated 9 January 2026, sets out what Harvey stands behind. Section 8 indemnifies the customer against third party claims that the service infringes intellectual property. If a claim arises, Harvey may substitute the service, secure a license to continue, or terminate and refund prepaid fees. The indemnity excludes materials Harvey did not provide and output from input the customer knew was likely to infringe. Harvey warrants that the service conforms to its documentation, is delivered in a professional manner and complies with applicable law. It also commits to carry industry standard insurance with insurers rated A- or better by A.M. Best. Total liability is capped at the greater of 12 months of fees or $250,000. Payment, indemnity and claims the law will not let a contract limit, such as gross negligence, sit outside that cap. Data breach and confidentiality claims carry a separate cap of twice 12 months of fees or $500,000. After a security incident, the Security Addendum commits Harvey to an independent forensic investigation at its own cost. The agreement states that output is AI generated and may contain errors.
General terms and conditions are published openly in an EU version and a version for the United States. They carry numbered liability clauses, aggregate caps that apply across the subscriber and its affiliates, a separate cap of €100,000 on beta features, and a carve out the terms call an Enhanced Claim. No indemnity for third party claims arising from output, warranty on output or insurance position is stated.
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.
Word, Outlook, Teams and SharePoint all run Harvey inside them, and Vault syncs documents from iManage, SharePoint and Google Drive. The iManage connection is a direct OAuth integration with an embedded web extension, and NetDocuments access follows the firm's existing permissions. Intake takes requests from email, Jira, Slack, ServiceNow, iManage, Google Drive and SharePoint and sends updates back to the source channel. Command Center syncs employee profiles through SCIM. Aderant and Ansarada integrations are documented in the trust center, and customers can build their own integrations, including through an MCP connector library. LexisNexis content reaches research through Ask LexisNexis.
Legora integrates with document management systems rather than replacing them. An iManage technology partnership works through iManage APIs, and SharePoint, Box, virtual data rooms and contract lifecycle systems feed documents in. Add ins bring the Agent and playbooks into Word and Outlook, EDGAR sits among the research sources, and MCP connectors and third party legal services feed the Agent's context. A plugin released on 17 September 2026 brings Legora's grounded answers into ChatGPT Enterprise. What each connection moves, in which direction and what an administrator configures is not documented.
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.
Microsoft Azure hosts Harvey's cloud environment, with each customer's data logically separated and access set by role. Customers can keep data in region in the EU or Switzerland, the United States or Australia. Customers with localization needs can also have processing in the EU and Switzerland or in Australia, and that commitment extends to Harvey's subprocessors. The Subprocessor List gives each model provider's processing locations. Where Anthropic or Mistral models are not offered in a chosen region, Harvey reaches them through hosting platforms such as AWS Bedrock and Google Vertex. What changes between plans or tiers is not stated.
Legora runs separate arrangements for the EU, the United States and Asia Pacific. Its subprocessor list sets out hosting and AI model providers by region, Microsoft, AWS and Google among them, with EU customers' data held in the EU and EEA. Storage is tiered to data sensitivity, technical teams in the EU and the United States support local clients, and subscriber environments are logically separated. No customer selection of region inside a tier is described, and where processing happens is not separated from where data is stored.
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.
Schellman audits Harvey for SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 every year, and the 2026 audit and certification renewal are complete. The trust center also lists ISO 27701, ISO/IEC 42001, AIUC-1, IRAP, TX-RAMP, GDPR, CCPA and an EU AI Act item. It publishes Statements of Applicability for ISO 27001, 27701 and 42001. Schellman, NCC Group and Bishop Fox perform external audits, and third party penetration tests run every year. Reports, the CAIQ v4.0.3, SIG Core and SIG Lite questionnaires and the data flow and network diagrams are released through a self serve access request, with bulk download.
ISO 27001:2022 with a yearly audit, SOC 2 Type II and ISO 42001 for the AI management system are all current. The trust center at security.legora.com carries a resources section and a data flow diagram, and the security whitepapers and security measures annex are published without a gate. Penetration tests run twice a year under an assume breach method. The certifying auditor is not named.
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 Subprocessor List names ten AI providers with their processing locations, among them Microsoft, OpenAI, Google Cloud, Amazon Web Services, Anthropic and Mistral. ElevenLabs supplies voice services, DeepL machine translation, and Baseten and Fireworks.ai further model hosting. Claude and Gemini models run through Amazon Bedrock and Google Vertex AI, as Harvey's subprocessor FAQ explains. Model providers work under zero data retention, with no human review and no training on customer data. Under the DPA, customers who subscribe to the list receive notice at least 30 days before a new subprocessor is added and may object. Which model serves which feature is not stated.
The subprocessor list names Microsoft, AWS and Google for hosting, infrastructure and AI models and OpenAI for AI models, with DeepL for optional translation and Linkup Labs for web results, each with its residency. New subprocessors are announced by updating the list, with 30 days for the subscriber to object. An orchestration layer handles model selection across tasks. No model or model version is named, and nothing states which provider serves which feature.
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.
Fees are set in each customer's order form and invoiced under the Platform Agreement. If an order form is terminated early under the agreement, Harvey refunds a pro rata share of prepaid unused fees. Undisputed late amounts carry a finance charge at the Federal Funds Rate plus 1.5% a year. No rate, plan, tier or unit of charge appears on Harvey's site, and buying starts with a contact sales form.
No pricing page, rate, unit of charge or tier structure is published, and the commercial route is a demo request. The general terms are published openly, so contract terms can be read before a sales conversation even though price cannot.
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.
Large law firms, mid sized firms, in house legal departments and professional services firms are the stated buyers. Industry pages cover healthcare and life sciences, technology, energy and utilities, and media, entertainment and telecom. More than 200,000 lawyers at over 3,500 organizations in more than 85 countries use Harvey, including 80% of Am Law 100 firms and five of the Fortune 10. Solutions pages address litigation, transactional work and innovation teams, and research spans legal, regulatory and tax questions across jurisdictions. Firm sizes or practice areas the product is not built for are not stated.
Legora serves large law firms, small and mid sized firms, in house legal departments, the public sector and professional services, with solution pages for M&A, litigation, banking, insurance, private equity and tax. Multi jurisdiction and cross border work are stated strengths, with research sources across Europe and federal and state law in the United States. No firm size or practice area is named as outside its scope.
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?
Under the Platform Agreement, Harvey will not train any AI model on customer content or customer data, and its subprocessors will not either. The term covers both uploaded documents, which Harvey calls customer data, and the prompts and answers it calls customer content. A firm that asks for it can have a bespoke model trained on its own data and used only for that firm. Harvey may use usage data, such as feature and session statistics, to develop and improve the service, and usage data excludes customer data and content.
Under the heading Feedback, Usage Data and no training, Legora's general terms bar it from using a subscriber's confidential information to train or fine tune AI models and bar its subcontractors from doing so. Legora may use usage data to develop and improve the services, and shares it outside the company only when aggregated and anonymized. The home page and security page repeat the commitment as zero AI training on customer data.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Customers decide what to upload, how long it is kept and whether it can be shared inside the organization, and they can delete data at any time. No default retention period is published. Model providers work under zero data retention, and subprocessors other than cloud storage providers may not retain or log content for human review. After termination, Harvey deletes remaining customer data and content within 30 days unless the customer instructs otherwise.
Section 17 of the security measures annex, dated 31 January 2025, keeps personal data under whatever retention the subscriber instructs during the data processing agreement, and clause 11 of that agreement governs return or deletion after it ends. No default retention period or zero retention setting is published. Backups of the full production environment run every four hours, and each subscriber's environment stays logically separate.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
NetDocuments permissions carry through, so a user sees only the cabinets, matters, folders and files they can already open, and Harvey does not change those permissions. The iManage connection is a direct OAuth integration that respects iManage permissions and ethical walls. Harvey also syncs the firm's own ethical walls provider and blocks walled users from reaching or sharing restricted content.
Ethical walls and role based access control keep confidential information from crossing matters or projects, and full audit trails record every tool call, file access and agent action. Access control is built on the Zanzibar authorization model. How a wall is set up, and whether retrieval applies document management permissions per user at query time, is not described.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
If law or a court order compels Harvey to disclose a customer's confidential information, the Platform Agreement commits it to advance written notice where legally permitted and to help seek confidential treatment. The DPA makes the same commitment for law enforcement requests for personal data. Where the law forbids notice, Harvey seeks a waiver and tells the customer once the prohibition ends. Its Law Enforcement Requests policy sends agencies to the customer first, challenges requests its lawyers consider unlawful and answers foreign requests only through channels such as a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty. No transparency report is published.
Legora's general terms let a party disclose confidential information when law or an order of an authority, regulator or court compels it. The compelled party gives the other notice of the proceeding where the law allows and cooperates in seeking confidential treatment. The data processing agreement adds notice of any communication with a data protection authority about Legora's processing. No transparency report is published.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Knowledge connects questions to legal databases, curated public sources and Harvey's data partners, more than 500 legal sources across jurisdictions. The Subprocessor List names RELX, doing business as LexisNexis, for Ask LexisNexis, and Parallel Web Systems and you.com for web browsing and knowledge sources. Harvey's AI Policy commits it to obtaining the rights and licenses its data sets require. No source list by jurisdiction, license basis per source or update schedule is published.
Legora names the sources behind its research. Federal law and all 50 states in the United States are hosted on Legora, beside SEC EDGAR. European sources include France's Cour de cassation, Germany's federal statutes, Sweden's court portal, Lovdata, Retsinformation, Finland's legal database and Portugal's official gazette, and content partnerships bring in publishers. The Qura acquisition adds a Swedish database of case law, legislation and regulation. No license basis or update lag is stated for any source.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Knowledge answers from more than 500 legal sources and draws LexisNexis content through Ask LexisNexis. Harvey does not describe a treatment signal or a later history check on the authorities it returns.
Legora is building its own AI native citator on an ontology of the law, announced on 14 September 2026. The ontology captures the hierarchy of authority, how sources relate and temporal validity, so an amended rule or an overruled case is recognized as such, and former publisher attorney editors set and audit the standard. The technology comes from the Qura and Wexler acquisitions. The citator is in limited beta, with general availability planned for the fourth quarter of 2026, and no coverage figure or error rate is published.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
BigLaw Bench publishes hallucination rates and explains how Harvey defines and detects hallucinated claims, and agents cite a source for every claim. No setting or behavior is described for declining to answer when Harvey cannot ground a response.
The Agent checks whether it met the goal and loops back to adjust, and research ranks sources by authority before answering. No explicit no answer path, abstention behavior or confidence value shown to the user is described.
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, records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and names the tool involved where known. It lists one matter naming Harvey, Hill v. Foundation Media LLC (S.D.N.Y., No. 25-cv-5947). On 22 September 2026 the court directed defense counsel to say whether AI was used on a brief with two questioned quotations and a citation, and a week later it took no further action.
Harvey is named only in counsel's own letter to the court, which says the brief was prepared with Harvey. No order makes any finding about Harvey or its output. A Galicia High Court order of 7 July 2026 lists Harvey AI among verified legal AI tools while setting a €1,800 fine, again with no finding about the product. Harvey's agreement states that output is AI generated and may contain errors.
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 Legora or Leya. Legora's research checks findings against primary law, and its Tabular Review links every answer to the document it came from.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Harvey's terms call the service a research tool whose output is not legal advice, and the agent pages leave the judgment on each task with the lawyer. No named ethics opinion appears, such as ABA Formal Opinion 512 or a state bar opinion.
Legora publishes material on its own AI governance and ISO 42001 certification, and none of it engages ABA Formal Opinion 512, a state bar opinion or national bar guidance on lawyers' use of AI.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
ROI calculators for law firms and in house teams sit on Harvey's site, and customer stories report time saved, such as Repsol's. Command Center reports adoption by user, practice group and role. Nothing records AI assisted work per matter for billing, or addresses how a firm bills for that work or discloses it to clients.
Legora sells to law firms and in house teams, and its customers page reports 80 percent of non billable hours saved weekly by experienced users and $6.4 million in additional billing per 100 lawyers a year. The small and mid sized firm page pitches more matters handled without more headcount. No record of AI assisted work by matter for fee purposes, and no billing or client disclosure guidance, is offered.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The trust center offers a Data Processing Addendum, a Business Associate Addendum and a Data Subject Requests item. It adds the CAIQ v4.0.3, SIG Core and SIG Lite questionnaires, data flow and network diagrams, a HIPAA report and a Security Welcome Packet. Sensitive items are released through a self serve request with bulk download. Statements of Applicability for ISO 27001, 27701 and 42001 show what each certification covers.
The public Subprocessor List names every provider with its purpose and location, and subscribers hear of additions 30 days ahead.
Legora publishes its subprocessor list by region, last updated 6 July 2026, naming Microsoft, AWS, Google and OpenAI as AI model and hosting providers with their purpose, data categories and residency, and offers email updates. Its general terms, data processing agreement, security measures annex and acceptable use policy are published without a gate. No client facing consent or notice pack is offered, and trust center documents come through a request.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Audit logs are a standard enterprise control, agents log every step, and every claim links to the source passage behind it. Command Center reports usage by user and feature. No export brings together the model used, the sources retrieved and the human review for one document.
Full audit trails record every tool call, file access and agent action, Tabular Review cells link to their source documents, and Portal answers cite the exact source. No export for each document records the model used and the human verification, and no court disclosure template is offered.
The questions both sides leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favor either vendor. Take these into both conversations and ask each side the same question.
- Commercial Transparency
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Which one fits
Choose Harvey if
- You need measured accuracy rather than a described method. Harvey participated in an independent benchmark run by an outside evaluator. Legora publishes no accuracy figure and no hallucination rate, and the research layer and citator it described in September 2026 are still in limited beta.
- Integration depth decides the purchase. Harvey documents its iManage, NetDocuments, SharePoint and Microsoft connections at implementer level. Legora has a real iManage partnership but does not publish that depth of detail.
- You want to know where the AI stops and the lawyer takes over. Harvey documents review surfaces, role based permissions and workflow conditionals. Legora covers oversight in the abstract through an ISO 42001 certification without describing the mechanism.
Choose Legora if
- Your matters run across jurisdictions and the working pattern matters more than the benchmark. Legora is built around a shared surface for the matter team and the AI, with Tabular Review linking every cell back to its source, and states multi jurisdiction work as a strength.
- You want the commercial terms in front of you before signing. Legora publishes general terms in EU and US versions, a data processing agreement and a security measures annex. The terms carry numbered liability clauses and aggregate caps, so the allocation of loss can be read before a sales process begins.
- You are buying in Europe and want a vendor whose data protection documentation is written for that starting point rather than adapted to it.
In summary
Harvey
Harvey is an enterprise legal AI platform for law firms, in house legal departments and professional services firms. According to the AI Legal Index, Harvey took part in the independent 2025 Vals Legal AI Report and documents its document management integrations at a level an administrator can act on. Its Platform Agreement bars training on customer data, carries an intellectual property indemnity and caps liability at the greater of a year's fees or $250,000. The same agreement calls the service a research tool whose output is not legal advice, and no price is published.
Legora
Legora is a collaborative AI workspace for law firms and in house legal teams, built around a shared surface where the matter team and the AI work in the same place. Tabular Review turns large document sets into structured review, with each cell linked to its source. According to the AI Legal Index, Legora's distinguishing strength is contractual openness. General terms in EU and US versions, a data processing agreement and a security measures annex are published rather than gated, alongside an ISO 42001 certification of its AI management system. In September 2026 it described a rebuilt research layer with its own AI native citator, in limited beta. What holds it back is disclosure rather than capability: it publishes no accuracy measurement and no described oversight mechanism.
Questions buyers ask
Harvey vs Legora: which is better for a law firm?
Harvey is the better documented vendor. The difference is concentrated in published evidence: Harvey submitted to an independent benchmark and documents its integrations and review surfaces in detail, while Legora publishes no accuracy measurement and describes oversight as a principle rather than a mechanism. Legora's collaborative working surface is genuinely distinctive and may still fit a team better. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 24, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does Legora publish accuracy or hallucination rates?
No. Legora publishes no accuracy measurement, no evaluation framework and no hallucination rate. What Legora did publish, on 14 September 2026, is how its rebuilt research layer works. It describes an ontology of the law mapping how authorities rank and relate, and its own AI native citator audited by a team of former publisher attorney editors. The citator is in limited beta, with general availability planned for the fourth quarter. That is a documented method rather than a measurement. Harvey, by contrast, participated in the February 2025 Vals Legal AI Report, run by an outside evaluator. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 24, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which one integrates better with iManage?
Both have real iManage connections and Harvey documents its more thoroughly. Harvey's is a direct OAuth integration with an embedded web extension, with published articles describing what moves, in which direction and what an administrator must configure. Legora has an announced iManage technology partnership working through iManage APIs, plus SharePoint, Box, a Word add in, Outlook and EDGAR, and is explicit that it integrates with document management systems rather than replacing them. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 24, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What do Harvey and Legora cost?
Neither publishes a price. Neither has a pricing page, a published rate, a stated unit of charge or a tier structure, and the only commercial entry point on each is a demo request. Independent pricing analyses exist for both but are not vendor published. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 24, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What do Harvey and Legora both leave unpublished?
Neither publishes a rate at all. Neither addresses competence and supervision duties or jurisdiction limits, although Harvey's agreement states that its output is not legal advice. And neither states the boundary of what it is not built for. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of September 24, 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.
The gap between these two is a disclosure gap, not a capability finding. Legora publishes no accuracy measurement and describes no oversight mechanism on its site, blog, newsroom or trust center. Third party directories describe a citation verification capability at Legora, which is not vendor material. Legora's own September description of its research layer and citator is vendor material, and it documents a method rather than a measurement. Both vendors are direct competitors for the same large firm accounts, so customer counts on either side are as the vendors state them. Neither reviewed this page.