Harvey vs Saga: how they compare in 2026
Size of firm and market separate these two, and a 2026 Legaltech Hub survey placed Saga third among AI assistants in use in Europe, behind Legora and Harvey. Harvey is built for the largest organizations, with more than 3,500 law firms and legal teams in over 85 countries and a platform of agents, Vault, Knowledge, Spaces and Command Center. Saga serves more than 500 legal teams, mainly mid sized European law and tax firms, sole practitioners and public bodies. Its research covers 44 jurisdictions refreshed every 24 hours, and Grid Review analyzes document sets in a table. A workflow builder lets a firm set how much agency each workflow gets, on a model agnostic platform with current OpenAI and Anthropic models. Saga Amplify adds legal engineers who train each firm. Harvey publishes no price, while Saga's Solo plan costs €135 a month on a yearly term. Harvey suits a large international organization. Saga suits a Dutch, Nordic or other European firm that wants local research, templates and training without a large innovation team of its own.
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.
Each part of Saga runs on a model. Chat answers questions about documents and the law, drafts and analyzes contracts. Assistants carry custom instructions, from templates or from scratch, and can challenge an argument or simulate a scenario with a judge or a devil's advocate. Grid Review reads hundreds of documents into a table that sorts by date, number or true and false, for due diligence and mass analysis. The workflow builder chains these blocks, either by drag and drop or from a plain description, and lets the firm decide how much agency a workflow has. Research, translation of whole documents and drafting from the case file sit beside them. Projects and sharing organize the work, but no matter management or billing system stands apart from the AI.
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.
Research answers link every point to its source. The legal research collection holds about 15 million documents, case law, legislation and regulation for 44 jurisdictions, refreshed every 24 hours, gathered by Saga itself and from partners and publishers such as Lovdata, Rettsdata and NL Fiscaal. Semantic retrieval returns results with the court, date and case number, a cited source is marked as verified, and results can be added to a Project in one step. Where no reliable source exists, the answer says so instead of offering an invented authority. No measured accuracy rate, test set or failure analysis 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.
Firms decide how much agency each workflow gets in the workflow builder, from fixed reusable steps to agentic runs. In Word, Saga works through redlines and comments the lawyer can accept or reject. Ready made workflows ask the user to confirm the parties before generating letters, notices and reports from the same source data. Summaries, timelines and issue maps carry source references so the lawyer knows where to read in full. Saga positions judgment, confidentiality and responsibility as staying with the lawyer, and its Amplify legal engineers train firms and build workflows with them before and after rollout. No published threshold makes a workflow stop and hand back, and recovery after a wrong output is not 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.
More than 500 legal teams and law firms in over 25 countries use Saga, and the company reported passing €5.5M in annual recurring revenue in September 2026. Named firms are quoted by partners and managers: Nysingh, La Gro, Sherrards, Arcagna, Brækhus, DVDW, Advokatfirma Lippestad, Stek, Poelmann van den Broek and Brinkhof. DVDW describes launching Saga for legal research and document analysis, Nysingh describes its use as a law and notary firm, and Brækhus calls it central to its own transformation. Saga also announced a partnership with the Brazilian firm Madrona Advogados and reported ranking third among European legal AI assistants used by legal teams in June 2026. No customer publishes a figure for time saved or quality, and no case study with measured outcomes is published.
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.
Customer data does not train models, and the customer remains its owner. Data is kept confidential and segregated from other customers, access is managed between user groups inside a firm, and private links and encryption protect it in transit and at rest. Abuse monitoring and content filters from the model labs are switched off, so prompts are not held by those labs for review. Sole practitioners are promised that confidentiality stays with them while the product does the groundwork. These commitments sit on Saga's security page and trust center. The service agreement and data processing agreement that govern customer data are not public, and privilege and work product are not addressed by name.
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.
Buyers include law and tax firms, legal departments, sole practitioners and public bodies, among them courts and police organizations. The material keeps judgment, confidentiality and responsibility with the lawyer and presents the product as groundwork rather than advice, with drafts started from the file for the lawyer to finish. Sole practitioners are told the product is safe to rely on because it says when no source exists. No terms of service are published, so no written disclaimer on legal advice, user eligibility or jurisdiction limits can be read. Professional rules for the bars Saga serves are not discussed, and use by courts is not tied to judicial conduct rules.
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.
Alignment with the EU AI Act is claimed, and an EU AI Act compliance document sits in the trust center behind an access request. The Amplify program offers client firms governance aware adoption, workshops on prompts, assistants and workflows, and quarterly reviews. The trust center groups more than 90 controls under infrastructure, organizational, product and data protection headings, with an internal audit program. No AI policy, release testing regime, accountable owner or analysis of uneven output across jurisdictions or languages 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.
Subprocessors are listed with their role and region. Microsoft Azure hosts in the Netherlands, Switzerland or the United States, and Weaviate holds the database in the same regions. Amazon Web Services runs models in Germany or the United States, Google Cloud runs models in the Netherlands or the United States, and DeepL translates. Data is encrypted in transit and at rest over private links, and access is managed by user group. External and internal security tests run regularly, with reports dated December 2025 and February 2026, and continuity, disaster recovery, capacity and configuration management sit among the published controls. Account data is kept while the account is active and for 30 to 90 days after deletion. No retention period for documents, prompts or outputs and no breach notice timeline are published.
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.
No terms of service, service agreement or limitation of liability is published. The privacy policy refers to a service agreement and a data processing agreement between Saga and each customer, and the data processing agreement is listed in the trust center behind an access request. Caps, indemnities, warranties and recourse for wrong output cannot be read before signing.
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.
A Word add in reviews and edits documents from a prompt, an email or a playbook, fills templates and marks changes as redlines and comments. An Outlook add in, launched in June 2026, drafts and summarizes email, attaches Saga documents and imports emails with attachments into a Project. Saga announced an iManage connection in August 2026, links to the Dutch document systems Epona365 and DMSforlegal in June 2026, and a September 2026 partnership with Dillien for deal data. Research results can be added straight into a Chat or a Project, and translated documents keep their comments and redlines. Single sign on is set up during onboarding. What each document system connection syncs, 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.
Cloud hosting runs on Microsoft Azure, with regions in the Netherlands, Switzerland or the United States and the vector database in the same three regions. Model processing is listed separately from storage, on Amazon Web Services in Germany or the United States and on Google Cloud in the Netherlands or the United States. Each customer's data is segregated from the others and reached over private links, and single sign on is configured per firm at onboarding. Translation runs through DeepL. The region a given plan uses, and any on premises option, are 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.
ISO/IEC 27001:2022 is held. The certificate, the audit report and the statement of applicability sit in a trust center beside dated security test reports, a security training attestation and more than 90 controls, and documents are released through an access request. SOC 2 is pending, and GDPR compliance is stated, with an accessibility statement and the data processing agreement among the agreements on file. The certification body and the certificate dates are not shown on the public view.
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 platform is model agnostic. Saga picks a model for each query, or the user chooses one, and new models are announced as they arrive, such as GPT-6 in September 2026, Claude Opus 5.5 that month and GPT-5 in 2025. Models run through Amazon Web Services in Germany or the United States and Google Cloud in the Netherlands or the United States, both listed as subprocessors. Saga describes the product as a glass box rather than a black box. No commitment to give notice before a model or provider changes is published.
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.
Solo, for sole practitioners and small teams, is published at €135 a month on a 12 month term or €150 a month on a 3 month term, with a 14 day free trial that needs a card. It includes drafting, review, research and workflows across 15 million documents in 40 jurisdictions, with no setup fees and no per document charges, and prices can be shown in euros, dollars, kroner or krona. Saga Enterprise for mid sized and large firms, legal departments and public bodies is quoted after a demo.
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.
Customers range from sole practitioners and small teams to mid sized and large law and tax firms, legal departments, and public bodies such as municipalities, courts, tax authorities and police organizations. Research covers 44 jurisdictions, from the EU, the Netherlands, Norway and the UK to the United States, Brazil and Mexico, and the interface runs in English, Dutch, Norwegian, Italian, German and Turkish. Translation handles more than 50 languages for cross border files. Ready made workflows cover matter types such as letters, notices, reports and wills, and tax firms use it for tax research. Practice areas and jurisdictions outside the product's 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.
Customers remain the owners of their data, and it is not used for training, a commitment made on Saga's security page and repeated as a control in its trust center. Abuse monitoring and content filters from the model labs are switched off. The service agreement and data processing agreement are not public, so no matching contract term can be read.
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.
Core account data is kept while an account is active and for 30 to 90 days after it is deactivated or deleted. With abuse monitoring from the model labs switched off, prompts are not held by those labs for review. How long Saga itself keeps documents, prompts and outputs in Projects and Chats is not stated.
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 customer's data is segregated from other customers, and access inside a firm is managed between user groups. Projects hold the documents, case law and regulations for a matter and can be shared with colleagues. How permissions on a Project are set, and whether they follow a document system such as iManage, 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 privacy policy, last updated on 13 August 2026, lists competent public authorities among the recipients of personal data where the law requires it. It makes no commitment to tell the customer about a request or to resist one, and no transparency report is published. Customer data under the service agreement is governed by a data processing agreement that is not public.
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.
The collection holds about 15 million case law, legislation and regulation documents for 44 jurisdictions, refreshed every 24 hours. Part of it is gathered directly and the rest comes from partners, with the publishers Lovdata, Rettsdata and NL Fiscaal named among them. Coverage runs from the Court of Justice of the EU and national courts in the Netherlands, Norway, the UK and Germany to the United States, Brazil and Mexico. Which sources serve each jurisdiction, and the rights basis for each, are not listed.
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.
Cited sources carry a verified label and show the court, date and case number, and legislation is refreshed every 24 hours. A verified label confirms that the cited document exists. No flag for a decision that has been overturned or a provision that has been 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.
Answers come from real, cited sources, and where none exists the product says there is no reliable source rather than inventing an authority. The research view marks such a citation as no source found beside the verified ones. No published evaluation shows how often this happens.
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 Saga or Saga International. Saga links every research answer to its source and marks a missing source as such.
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.
Judgment, confidentiality and responsibility stay with the lawyer in Saga's material, and its Amplify training is described as helping firms adopt AI responsibly, with professional development points available. No ethics opinion or bar guidance from the Netherlands, Norway or any other market it serves is discussed, and no mapping of the product to professional 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 and tax firms are the main buyers, and the product is pitched on understanding a case in minutes and researching in seconds, while customer partners describe working more efficiently. Saga's own commentary argues that usage based pricing suits large firms rather than smaller ones. No guidance on billing clients for AI assisted work or disclosing it is published, and no record of AI work by matter is described.
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.
Subprocessors are listed with role and region on the security page and in the trust center: Microsoft Azure, Weaviate, Amazon Web Services and Google Cloud for model inference, and DeepL for translation. The data processing agreement, the ISO report and an EU AI Act compliance note are released through an access request. 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.
Every research answer links to its source, Projects keep the documents and authorities behind a piece of work, and the user can see or choose which model answered. Word edits arrive as redlines and comments, and summaries and timelines carry references back to the source documents. No export records the model, the sources and the person who verified a filing, 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
Which one fits
Choose Harvey if
- You run a global firm or a large legal department. Harvey is used in more than 85 countries and by more than 80 of the AmLaw 100.
- You need matters shared across organizations. Spaces lets legal teams at different organizations work on the same matter in a secure space.
- You want contracts and regulatory change on one platform. Contract Intelligence supports reviews and negotiations, and Horizon Scanning tracks regulatory change.
Choose Saga if
- You practice in the Netherlands, Norway or elsewhere in Europe. Saga's research covers 44 jurisdictions, refreshed daily, with content from publishers such as Lovdata, Rettsdata and NL Fiscaal.
- You want help adopting AI, not only software. Saga Amplify assigns legal engineers for onboarding, training, workshops and quarterly reviews, with professional development points.
- You want to choose the model behind each answer. Saga picks a model per query or lets you choose, and it added GPT-6 and Claude Opus 5.5 in September 2026.
In summary
Harvey
Harvey offers a legal AI platform whose agents handle legal work end to end, while Vault, Knowledge and Spaces cover document analysis, research and shared work. It runs in Word, Outlook and iManage and draws on more than 500 regional knowledge sources. According to the AI Legal Index, Harvey holds ISO 42001 and ISO 27701 beside SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001. By Harvey's account, its Platform Agreement bars training on customer inputs, outputs and documents.
Saga
Saga International B.V. in Amsterdam builds Saga, a model agnostic legal AI platform for law and tax firms, legal departments, sole practitioners and public bodies in more than 25 countries. Research spans 44 jurisdictions with every answer linked to its source, and Word and Outlook add ins carry the work into daily drafting. According to the AI Legal Index, Saga holds ISO 27001:2022, lists its subprocessors with regions and does not use customer data for training.
Questions buyers ask
Where do Harvey and Saga rank in Europe?
A 2026 Legaltech Hub survey of law firm AI adoption was presented at Lexpo in Amsterdam. As Saga reports it, the survey placed Saga third among AI assistants in use in Europe, behind Legora and Harvey and ahead of Microsoft Copilot. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which covers European national law more deeply?
Saga publishes its coverage: 44 jurisdictions of case law, legislation and regulation with a 24 hour refresh, including the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Germany, France and the Nordic countries. Harvey draws on more than 500 regional knowledge sources and lets firms reach LexisNexis and Rettsdata from inside the platform. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Where do Harvey and Saga host data?
Harvey keeps data in the EU or Switzerland, the United States or Australia. Saga hosts on Microsoft Azure in the Netherlands, Switzerland or the United States and runs models on AWS in Germany or the United States and on Google Cloud in the Netherlands or the United States. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
What does each one charge?
Harvey quotes after a demo. Saga's Solo plan for sole practitioners and small teams is priced publicly per month with a 14 day trial, and firm plans are quoted. 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 announced a $550M raise in 2026. Saga International B.V. raised a seed round of more than €1.5M in October 2025 and reported €5.5M in annual recurring revenue in September 2026; the survey ranking is Saga's report of Legaltech Hub's results. Neither vendor reviewed this page.