Harvey vs Parachute: how they compare in 2026
Parachute's own comparison frames this choice by firm size, and the products bear that out. Harvey serves the top of the market, with more than 80 of the AmLaw 100 and more than 200,000 professionals among its users. Its platform spans agents, Vault, Knowledge, Spaces, Contract Intelligence and Horizon Scanning, with storage in the EU or Switzerland, the United States or Australia. Parachute is built for firms of one to 200 lawyers in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the United States and Canada. It drafts from the firm's precedents, reviews contracts against the firm's own policies with risks rated by severity, and answers on Australian legislation with the act and section linked. NetDocuments, Clio, Smokeball and InfoTrack connect, data is hosted in Australia, and Standard starts at A$400 a month with further seats at A$120. Harvey suits a large firm or legal department that wants a broad platform and an enterprise relationship. Parachute suits a suburban or regional practice that wants drafting, review and matter work in one workspace at a published price.
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.
Drafting and review are the product. A single prompt becomes a draft built from the firm's industry, jurisdictions, precedents and knowledge base, and sections can be refined with the model. Contract review runs a multistage analysis that identifies each party's obligations, flags conflicts with the firm's own policies and scores risks high, medium or low. Tabular review fills a grid of defined columns across many documents, and the notetaker joins Zoom, Teams or Google Meet calls to produce summaries, decisions and actions. A model switcher and three modes route each task. Matters, workstreams, the editor and client management give the AI a workspace, but they are sold as one product with it.
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.
Every answer shows its sources, so a claim traces back to the document, the legislation or the research behind it. Questions about Australian legislation are grounded in the act and section, with a link to the source. Review findings are compared with the firm's own knowledge base, so a clause that conflicts with a house policy is flagged with the policy it conflicts with. Parachute's own buying guide tells firms to expect clickable citations, live legislation and accuracy claims backed by a method, but no accuracy figure or test set of its own is published, and case law coverage is not described.
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 terms treat AI content as information that may contain errors. It must not replace advice from a professional, and the privacy policy says the models assist and do not make final decisions without a chance for human review. In practice drafts open in an editor with track changes, comments and version history, and in line suggestions are accepted or rejected one by one. Firms can invite clients and act as the expert verification layer for their legal work. The user picks Paralegal, Lawyer or Senior Associate mode, or lets Auto choose, and a daily briefing ranks the day's work each morning for the lawyer to act on. No threshold at which the product stops and hands back, 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.
Named customers give figures. Arisha Arif, senior legal counsel at Zed Law, says a 2.5 hour task took 20 minutes, and Simon Fletcher of Fletch Law says his lawyers save up to 10 hours a week. Founders at Nexa Legal, Zencheck AI and Locumate are also quoted. Parachute cites a 20 minute average contract review, down from two hours, and eight hours saved per lawyer each week. None of the figures comes with a date or a measurement method. InfoTrack became an integration partner in April 2026.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
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.
Privilege is addressed directly. Submitting privileged or confidential material to the service does not waive privilege, under the privacy policy. Customer data is never used to train AI models, and the model providers, OpenAI, Anthropic and Google, are contractually barred from using, retaining or training on it beyond providing the service and are bound to confidentiality. Each organization's data is logically isolated, with role based access inside the firm. The published terms add mutual confidentiality with notice before any compelled disclosure. Segregation between matters inside a firm is not described.
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.
The terms say plainly that the company is not a law firm and gives no legal advice, and that AI content is for information only and must not replace advice from a professional. Buyers include law firms, chambers, in house teams and businesses without lawyers. Where a business engages a law firm through the platform, the firm alone is responsible for the advice, and Parachute acts only as a limited agent for engagement and payment. Service is limited to Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the United States and Canada, and sanctioned jurisdictions are excluded. Competence and supervision duties for lawyers are not discussed.
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.
The privacy policy states that the models assist advisory work and do not make final, binding decisions without human review, and gives individuals the right to contest automated decisions. Secure development includes automated security scanning and peer review of every code change. No AI governance framework, release testing, accountable owner or analysis of uneven output is published.
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.
Data is encrypted in transit and at rest, each organization's data is logically isolated, and production access follows least privilege. Automated backups and monitoring run continuously. An incident response plan sets escalation paths, and Parachute commits to notify affected customers promptly after a confirmed breach. The AI subprocessors are named as OpenAI, Anthropic and Google, each contractually barred from retaining or training on customer data. After termination, customers have 30 days to export their data, after which it may be deleted, and trial or pilot data can be deleted at the end of the trial. No retention period applies to prompts during an active subscription.
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.
Under the terms of 21 September 2026, governed by New South Wales law, each party's liability is capped at the fees paid in the 12 months before the claim. Claims under the indemnities, breaches of confidentiality and prohibited uses carry a higher cap of ten times that amount, and gross negligence and intentional misconduct are not limited. Parachute defends customers against third party claims that the service infringes a patent, copyright, trademark or trade secret. AI content is provided without warranty of accuracy, and neither party answers for losses from relying on it without independent checking. Trials and pilots are as is, with no indemnity.
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.
NetDocuments connects both ways: documents import into matters and work saves back to the firm's document system, a link released in June 2026. Clio and Smokeball connect as practice management systems, InfoTrack orders can be placed from the chat, and OneDrive files are reachable. A Word add in brings drafting and review into Word, with a refreshed task pane from April 2026. Emails forwarded to a firm inbox become AI threads with their attachments, and the notetaker joins Zoom, Teams and Google Meet. Slack is listed. What syncs with Clio and Smokeball, and in which direction, is not described.
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.
Customer data is hosted in Australia. AI requests go to model providers in the United States by default, and customers that need every inference call to stay in Australia can have it processed on Australian infrastructure. Storage and model processing are therefore stated separately. Each organization is a logically isolated tenant on secure cloud infrastructure, and residency in other regions is on the roadmap. Which plans include Australian inference 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.
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.
The information security management system is certified to ISO 27001:2022 by Compass Assurance Services, an accredited certification body, under certificate 8818-4353-01, which is available on request. Practices are aligned with SOC 2 controls without a SOC 2 report. Scope and certificate dates are not shown, and there is no trust center.
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.
OpenAI, Anthropic and Google are named as the large language model providers, with inference in the United States by default or in Australia on request. A model switcher released in February 2026 lets users pick a model, and routing assigns models to tasks; Enterprise customers get priority model access at peak times. The specific models are not named, and no notice before a change of model or provider is committed.
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.
Standard costs A$400 a month for the firm's instance and first seat, then A$120 for each additional seat, with 20% off on an annual term billed monthly. Each plan includes a monthly allowance of requests. A Paralegal request counts as 1, a Lawyer request 3 and a Senior Associate request 15, and the allowance resets each period. Seats are pro rated when added, a 14 day trial is offered, and teams over 50 seats get volume pricing. Enterprise adds SSO, dedicated support, custom onboarding and SLAs at a quoted price. The price is shown before any seat change is confirmed.
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.
Firms of one to 200 lawyers are the target, with versions for law firms, chambers, in house teams and businesses that buy legal work. Practice pages cover family, corporate, employment, litigation, migration, commercial and property law, and Australian legislation is the research source. Service is offered in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the United States and Canada. Drafting covers documents such as privacy policies, contracts and terms of service from the firm's precedents. Practice areas outside its range are not stated.
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.
Documents, knowledge base content and AI interactions are used only to answer for the customer's own organization and never to train AI models. The privacy policy adds that OpenAI, Anthropic and Google are contractually barred from retaining or training on customer data. The published terms themselves contain no training clause.
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.
After termination, customers have 30 days to export their data in a machine readable format, after which Parachute may delete it, and trial or pilot data may be deleted when the trial ends. Model providers may not retain customer data. No retention period applies to prompts and outputs during an active subscription, and no zero retention setting is described.
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.
Each organization's data, knowledge base and AI interactions are separated from other organizations, and granular role based access limits what team members reach. Matters group threads, files and conversations. How access is restricted between matters inside a firm 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.
The confidentiality clause of the terms allows disclosure required by law only with prior written notice, so the other party can object or seek a protective order. Separately, disclosure to courts and law enforcement, such as on receipt of a subpoena, is listed among the uses of personal information. 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.
Research covers Australian legislation, with answers grounded in the act and section and linked to the source. The database behind it, case law coverage and the rights basis are not named, and drafting for other jurisdictions relies on the firm's own knowledge base.
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.
Answers cite the legislation, document or research behind them, and Parachute's buying guide stresses live legislation over static training data. No check of whether a cited case or provision has since been overturned or amended is described.
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 terms warn that AI content may contain errors, omissions or outdated information, and every answer shows its sources. What the product does when it cannot ground an answer, whether it declines or flags uncertainty, is not 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 Parachute or Veraty. Parachute attaches sources to every answer and tells users not to rely on AI content without professional review.
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.
Accuracy, sourcing and data security are covered in the terms and the buying guide, without reference to the professional conduct rules or law society guidance that bind lawyer customers in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the United States or Canada. No ethics opinion is discussed, and no mapping of the product to such rules is published.
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.
Law firms buy Parachute, which cites eight hours saved per lawyer each week and contract reviews cut from two hours to 20 minutes. Firms can invite clients on retainer and bill through the platform's law firm engagements, and credits are counted per request. No guidance on billing or disclosing AI assisted work is published.
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.
OpenAI, Anthropic and Google are named as AI subprocessors, with inference in the United States by default or in Australia on request, and the other third parties that handle personal information are listed as well. Subprocessors owe confidentiality at least as protective as Parachute's own duty to the customer. The ISO 27001 certificate is available on request, and no client facing disclosure pack is published.
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.
Answers carry citations, and the editor keeps version history, track changes and threaded comments, with Word export that preserves them. The user can see which mode and model handled a request. No export ties a filing to the model, sources and reviewer, and no court disclosure template is published.
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
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Which one fits
Choose Harvey if
- You lead a large firm with an innovation team. Harvey's customers include more than 80 of the AmLaw 100, and Harvey Academy and Command Center support rollout across offices.
- You need data held in Europe, Switzerland or the United States. Harvey offers in region storage in each, as well as Australia.
- Your work spans many jurisdictions and regulators. Knowledge covers legal, regulatory and tax research across domains, and Horizon Scanning tracks regulatory change.
Choose Parachute if
- You run a firm of one to 200 lawyers. Parachute is priced per firm instance and seat, with a 14 day trial and monthly billing you can cancel.
- Your firm runs on Clio, Smokeball or NetDocuments. Parachute connects to each, imports documents into matters, saves work back to NetDocuments and orders InfoTrack searches from the chat.
- You practice under Australian law. Legislation answers cite the act and section with a link, and AI inference can stay on Australian infrastructure.
In summary
Harvey
Harvey, valued at $15.5B in 2026, sells legal AI to large law firms, in house teams and professional service firms worldwide. Agents run legal work end to end, Vault handles bulk document analysis and Knowledge covers legal, regulatory and tax research. According to the AI Legal Index, Harvey keeps data in the EU or Switzerland, the United States or Australia, enforces existing ethical walls and holds SOC 2 Type II and ISO 42001.
Parachute
Parachute, from Veraty Tech in Sydney, is a legal AI workspace for small and mid sized firms, chambers, in house teams and businesses. It drafts from firm precedents, reviews contracts against firm policies, fills tabular reviews and runs a meeting notetaker. According to the AI Legal Index, Parachute publishes its terms and prices, names OpenAI, Anthropic and Google as model providers, and hosts customer data in Australia. Its ISO 27001:2022 certificate comes from Compass Assurance Services.
Questions buyers ask
Is Parachute a Harvey alternative for small firms?
Parachute publishes a comparison making that case: Harvey for the largest firms, Parachute for the rest. The products overlap on drafting, contract review and research, while Parachute adds matters, a notetaker, client invitations and practice management connections aimed at smaller firms. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How do Harvey and Parachute price access?
Harvey quotes after a demo. Parachute's Standard plan has a published monthly price in AUD for the firm's instance and first seat, a lower price for each extra seat, and request allowances that vary by AI mode. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which model providers sit behind each?
Parachute names OpenAI, Anthropic and Google as its model providers and bars them by contract from retaining or training on customer data. Harvey states that its Platform Agreement bars training underlying models on customer inputs, outputs and documents. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Where is client data kept?
Parachute hosts customer data in Australia and can keep AI inference there for customers that need it. Harvey offers storage in the EU or Switzerland, the United States and Australia. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 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.
Harvey's 2026 round valued it at $15.5B. Parachute is the trading name of Veraty Tech Pty Ltd, which raised a pre seed round led by Rampersand, and Parachute publishes its own comparison with Harvey. Neither vendor reviewed this page.