iCONECT vs Lighthouse: how they compare in 2026
A buyer comparing iCONECT with Lighthouse is weighing a platform it licenses against a provider that builds its own AI around Relativity. iCONECT is software first. Firms, corporations and service providers run it on their own servers, in their own cloud account, through a hosting partner or as SaaS on Azure, and it covers review, breach data mining and governance. Its AI ranks documents through continuous active learning, checks reviewer tags with Oversight and adds generative summaries, classification and redaction. Lighthouse sells LighthouseIQ, four AI applications on its IQ Fabric layer. IQ Answers handles cited questions about a matter, and IQ Case Strategy builds chronologies and deposition preparation. IQ Review delivers coding into Relativity, and IQ Priv makes privilege calls and generates logs. Spectra gives self serve eDiscovery on Relativity, and Lighthouse also offers forensics, managed review and consulting. Its generative workflows use foundation models on Azure, and it says regulators including the DOJ and FTC have accepted them. iCONECT suits teams that want to own and host the review platform, while Lighthouse layers AI applications and expert help onto Relativity.
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.
Machine learning runs core review and breach response work on a document review platform that would still function without it. iCONECT's eDiscovery product is built around processing, an Elasticsearch index, deduplication, redaction and production. The models sit in several core capabilities: continuous active learning through Sentio technology; Oversight, which the vendor says is included in standard eDiscovery licensing and finds false negatives and false positives in reviewer tagging; AI email threading; and AI assisted identification and extraction of personal information in the cyber data mining product, where users can send documents to a model of their choice. Generative AI features listed on the eDiscovery and law firm pages add document summaries, classification by content or legal relevance, entity redaction, image description, transcription and translation. The vendor describes itself as a data intelligence AI platform, and in August 2026 announced an integration with eDiscovery AI that is still under development. Without the models, a full review and production system remains.
Lighthouse now leads with its AI applications, built on an eDiscovery platform and service that runs without them. LighthouseIQ's four applications answer questions in plain language from a matter's documents, draft chronologies and case strategy, code documents for responsiveness and issues, and identify privilege and draft privilege logs, using predictive and generative AI. Spectra runs integrated machine learning and AI services inside its self serve workflows. Underneath are processing, hosting, Relativity review and production, and a large forensics and managed review business, all of which operate without the models.
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.
The Oversight post of 17 May 2024 says the tool reaches a level of precision once thought unattainable and helps teams rectify discrepancies, with no recall, precision, elusion or validation figures and no test set. The cyber data mining page says each extracted data element is linked through audit trails to its original source file, creating a defensible chain of custody, which lets a reviewer trace a notification entry back to the document. How the generative features are grounded is not described: whether a document summary cites passages, how classification by legal relevance is validated, or how automatic privilege redaction is confirmed. No error rate or statement on invented content is published.
IQ Answers draws its answers only from the documents ingested for the matter and handles one question at a time to avoid context drift. Each answer passes through interpretation, then layered retrieval combining predictive relevance models, semantic similarity and retrieval that keeps context intact, then synthesis. Each response carries highlighted source text and exemplar documents so every statement can be traced. Lighthouse's defensibility guidance describes validation on samples with attorney review and prompt versioning. The only accuracy figure is that IQ Priv's privilege descriptions were 12 percent more accurate than contract attorneys in blind comparisons, with no test set given. IQ Answers is marketed as free of hallucinations, with no measurement behind the claim.
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.
The Oversight post of 17 May 2024 says a subject matter expert, attorney or experienced reviewer seeds a model with as few as fifty documents, and that Oversight reports tagging errors for the team to correct. The cyber data mining page lets a team define its criteria so that verification, whether manual or automatic, fits its needs, and says GenAI reviews are used where appropriate. The eDiscovery page says redaction, including of an entire document because of privilege, can happen automatically, and that document classification sorts documents by legal relevance automatically, with no review step described for either. Nothing states what the generative features may not be used for, when a person must check their output, or what happens when a classification or redaction is wrong. For the generative features, review is a setting the customer chooses.
Under Lighthouse's defensibility guidance, prompt engineers set AI instructions with counsel, attorneys review results on sample populations to confirm accuracy, and iterative feedback refines the prompts. IQ Review shifts work from reviewing each document to targeted validation and quality control, with summaries and rationales for each call, and IQ Priv produces editable log lines for attorney review. Lighthouse states that AI does not replace human reviewers. No confidence threshold, stopping point or published escalation path is stated, and IQ Review is run by Lighthouse consultants rather than configured by the customer.
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.
Releases on iCONECT's site record that ProFile Discovery selected the platform for its law firm and corporate legal department environments (26 January 2021) and that Everest Discovery launched a cyber breach response service built on it (27 January 2025), with a quote from Everest's owner and president; other releases name Pictera Solutions, Right Discovery and Iota Analytics as customers. The Why iCONECT page names NASA and the FDIC among users. The law firm page presents seven large matters, among them the Vioxx, Yasmin and Pradaxa litigation, Oracle v. SAP and the Columbia investigation, without naming the firm, iCONECT's role or a result. No case study with a measured result is published on the site.
Lighthouse quotes Penningtons Manches Cooper by name without figures, and reports an unnamed large healthcare organization saving $500,000 in its first year with 95 percent fewer documents sent to review. It states that Spectra customers saved $2,951,280.50 in July 2026, calculated as native data kept out of Relativity hosting multiplied by the standard hosting charge per GB. LighthouseIQ is described as applied across 1.4 billion documents with outputs accepted by the DOJ and FTC, without naming the matters.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
The only legal documents on the site are a terms of use (31 July 2024) and a privacy policy (June 2024), both written for the website. No customer agreement, data processing addendum or statement on training with customer documents is published. The eDiscovery and law firm pages cite SOC 2 certification, rigorous data protection and handling protocols and controlled access, and the SOC 2 Type 2 report on the SaaS platform covers the confidentiality criterion. The cyber data mining page lets users send documents to a model of their choice, including models from OpenAI, Microsoft and Google, and nothing published states what those providers may keep or use. The platform can be deployed on premises, which keeps documents in a firm's own environment, but nothing addresses privilege handling, segregation between matters, or what happens to documents sent to a model.
Lighthouse's Master Spectra Subscription Agreement (2 April 2026) bars it from using client data or metadata to train or develop any AI service, its own or a third party's. The same bar covers the inputs and outputs of its AI services. It bars sending client data to any publicly available or shared AI model without written authorization. Privilege has its own section confirming that privileged communications and work product remain protected and that work is done at counsel's direction. The agreement also commits to notice before compelled disclosure and requires deletion of client data within 30 days of termination. Spectra documents matter creation and role based access so users see only the matters they need. The contract governs Spectra; for LighthouseIQ, Lighthouse states the same position on training and retention outside any published agreement.
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.
The terms of use say information on iCONECT's pages is distributed on the understanding that the authors are not rendering legal, accounting or other professional advice. That sentence governs website content, not the review platform. The product classifies documents by legal relevance, redacts for privilege and summarizes documents for law firms, corporations, public sector organizations and service providers, and nothing published states that its output is not legal judgment, that a supervising lawyer must review it, or how it fits a lawyer's competence and supervision duties. No ethics opinion or court decision on technology assisted review is named.
The Spectra agreement states that Lighthouse is not engaged in the practice of law, provides no legal advice and creates no attorney client relationship. Its services represent Lighthouse's interpretation as a legal technology provider, and work on privileged material is done at the direction of the client or its counsel. Optional matter conflict checks are offered. Lighthouse's defensibility guidance says attorneys govern and validate AI outputs and confirm they reflect their professional judgment. The product is sold to law firms and legal departments, and no jurisdictional limits are stated.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
The platform page and a post of 10 May 2024 describe iCONECT's path as a responsible adoption of generative AI that enhances the platform without compromising data integrity or security. No person is named as accountable for model behavior, and no testing before release, evaluation results or principles are published. The SOC 2 Type 2 report covers information security controls and not the conduct of the models. Nothing addresses uneven output across languages and document types in classification by legal relevance or personal information identification. Users choosing between models from OpenAI, Microsoft and Google for personal information identification are not told how iCONECT evaluated them.
Lighthouse's Senior Director of AI and Analytics sets out how its generative workflows are governed in a published question and answer on defensibility. Prompt engineers work with counsel, attorneys validate outputs on sample sets with qualitative and quantitative metrics, and prompts are documented and versioned. It also says predictive workflows follow validated practice for technology assisted review. Lighthouse says LighthouseIQ was tested on live matters over three years. No release testing results, named accountability for the AI applications, or findings on uneven performance across languages or data types are 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.
The eDiscovery and law firm pages cite SOC 2 certification, regular security training and penetration testing, workstation and server security, data protection and handling protocols and controlled access, and the platform page cites encryption, access controls, regular security audits and adherence to GDPR and HIPAA standards. The SOC 2 Type 2 audit of the SaaS platform, completed on 22 September 2025 by A-LIGN, covers security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality and privacy. The cyber data mining page says ingestion, extraction, review and modification actions are logged with audit trails. The privacy policy (June 2024) covers the website and not data processed in the platform. No retention period, deletion commitment, breach notice timing, subprocessor list or statement on what model providers keep when documents are sent to them is published.
The Information Security Addendum to the Spectra agreement commits to notify a security incident within 48 hours with a description, likely consequences, mitigation and a contact. It also commits to multi factor access controls, central logging protected against tampering, and annual third party penetration tests. The Data Processing Addendum commits to destroy or return personal data within 60 days of termination, and the main agreement requires client data to be destroyed within 30 days. The Processor Compliance Statement adds encryption at rest and in transit and a rolling 30 day backup retention. The published subprocessor list names every subprocessor, affiliate and review staffing firm with its role and processing location, with a dated change log and notice and objection rights for new ones. Lighthouse says its AI workflows keep no customer data.
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.
No customer agreement, license terms or SaaS terms are published. The terms of use (31 July 2024, California law) disclaim liability for direct, indirect, special, incidental or consequential damages arising from the website and its content; they do not govern the software. No indemnity, warranty, cap or allocation of risk is published for missed documents, wrong classifications, failed redactions or errors in personal data extraction, on a product used to decide what is produced to an opposing party and who is notified after a breach.
Spectra's subscription agreement warrants that the services conform to their documentation, with refund, repair or replacement as the remedy. It indemnifies the client against third party claims that the Lighthouse IP infringes, and caps each party's liability at fees paid in the prior 12 months. The cap excludes fraud, willful misconduct, gross negligence, death or personal injury and third party claims. The client may terminate with a refund if availability or response levels are missed for three months in a row. Nothing addresses an incorrect AI answer, privilege call or log line.
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.
iCONECT's release of 10 June 2021 says its Ligl integration, available then, lets organizations identify, hold, preserve and collect enterprise documents in Ligl, process and cull them, and push relevant documents to iCONECT for review. The cyber data mining page lets users send selected documents to a model of their choice, including models from OpenAI, Microsoft and Google. The partners page shows Microsoft, Nuix, LexisNexis, Sentio, Opus 2 and Heureka Software as technology partners, as logos without descriptions, alongside more than 25 hosting partners. An integration with eDiscovery AI was announced on 24 August 2026 as under development, with availability to follow. The platform page says iCONECT integrates with the most common applications in its three markets, without naming them. Nothing describes connections to a firm's document management, matter management or litigation support systems, and no integration documentation is public.
Spectra runs matter setup, processing and culling, then promotes data into Relativity Server or RelativityOne for review and carries it through production and export. Workflow Manager and Native File Manager control what reaches active hosting. IQ Review delivers its results directly in Relativity. The platform also covers Microsoft 365 and Purview and workflows for Google Vault linked files. Technical documentation is provided to customers through Spectra rather than published.
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.
The eDiscovery page offers on premises, hybrid, cloud and SaaS deployment. The post of 19 July 2024 on system architecture describes in house deployment, cloud deployment on Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud, AWS or other providers, and hosting through iCONECT's network of legal service providers. The release of 23 August 2023 launching iCONECT SaaS says it runs on Microsoft Azure. A firm can therefore keep the platform and its documents on its own infrastructure. Not stated are where iCONECT's SaaS stores or processes data, which regions are available, and whether SaaS customers are separated at the tenant level. Nor is it stated where documents go when they are sent to a model from OpenAI, Microsoft or Google for personal information identification, or whether the generative features work in an on premises deployment.
Lighthouse hosts on Microsoft Azure in the United States and UK and colocation data centers in Seattle, Phoenix, London, Frankfurt and Dornach, and RelativityOne runs in the region the customer specifies. Its subprocessor list gives a processing location for every subprocessor and affiliate, including support outside office hours from India and review staffing in named countries case by case. Cloud workflows are controlled by region, keeping storage and computing within defined boundaries, and the LighthouseIQ workflows run in a private Azure environment. What changes between Spectra and managed service deployments is not set out.
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.
iCONECT's release of 29 September 2025 says A-LIGN completed a SOC 2 Type 2 audit of its SaaS platform on 22 September 2025 covering security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality and privacy, and the home page carries an A-LIGN badge. No audit period is stated, no trust center is published, and the report is offered neither for download nor on request. The eDiscovery and law firm pages add regular penetration testing and security training, and the platform page claims adherence to GDPR and HIPAA standards without any certification behind them.
A-LIGN Assurance certifies Lighthouse's ISO 27001 information security management system, United States operations hold SOC 2 and UK operations hold Cyber Essentials. The Spectra agreement commits to an annual assessment against ISO 27001, the HIPAA Security Rule and SOC 2 Type 2, with a summary provided on written request. Lighthouse offers the ISO certificate and a security overview through a Trust Center, and no report date or scope statement is published.
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 cyber data mining page lets users send selected documents for personal information identification to a model of their choice, including models from OpenAI, Microsoft and Google. The platform page says iCONECT integrated Sentio technology, which carries its continuous active learning, and acquired AI source code from Ayfie in 2021. Nothing published names the model behind document summaries, classification, image description, transcription or translation, states whether iCONECT or the customer holds the model provider relationship, says where those models run, or commits to notice when a model changes.
LighthouseIQ runs on IQ Fabric (processing, cognition and orchestration), which combines predictive models trained on attorney coding with generative models. Lighthouse says IQ Answers uses models tuned for legal work and that IQ Review and IQ Priv run in a private environment based on Azure. Its subprocessor list names Microsoft Azure for hosting and Daypack Research for AI workflow management tools, with notice before new subprocessors. No model, model provider or version is named.
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.
The law firm page offers flexible pricing with monthly or annual terms, the Why iCONECT page describes predictable pricing through monthly and yearly plans, and the release of 23 August 2023 launching iCONECT SaaS describes Price Protect, which applies discounts automatically as data volume grows without renegotiating the contract. That points to data volume as a driver and term length as a choice, without stating the unit, the rate or what the generative features add. No price, rate per gigabyte, user fee or tier is published, and every route to a number runs through a demo request.
Spectra's agreement sets out a free Tier 1 support level and a paid Tier 2 expert level, fees set in an order form, automatic annual renewal and rate increases on 90 days' notice. Spectra comes with a savings calculator and cheaper Nearline storage, and the hosting charge per GB appears only in the calculator's disclaimer. No rate, tier price or LighthouseIQ pricing is published.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
The site addresses law firms, corporations, public sector organizations and service providers, each with its own page, across three products: eDiscovery, cyber data mining for breach response, and data governance. The law firm page covers litigation, investigations and responsive actions, the cyber data mining page covers breach notification work for incident response professionals, and the release of 24 August 2026 names law firms, corporations, legal service providers and public sector organizations as customers. Named users include NASA and the FDIC. What is not stated is which languages the generative features and personal information identification support, which privacy regimes the breach tools are built around beyond references to GDPR and HIPAA, and which deployment options carry the generative features.
Lighthouse serves corporate legal departments and law firms in financial services, technology, pharmaceutical, healthcare, telecommunications, manufacturing and construction. Its specialties include antitrust and HSR second requests, multidistrict litigation, DSARs and Microsoft 365, and Spectra covers investigations, DSARs and compliance reviews, and routine litigation. IQ Answers works on any data with document text, and LighthouseIQ claims no limits on document types or volume; nothing states where the AI applications perform less well.
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?
No customer agreement, license terms or data processing addendum is published, and no page states a position on training with customer documents. The terms of use (31 July 2024) and the privacy policy (June 2024) cover the website only. Oversight's matter model is seeded by the customer's own reviewers with its own documents, which is not vendor training, and the cyber data mining page lets users send documents to models from OpenAI, Microsoft or Google with nothing published on whether those providers may train on them.
Under its Master Spectra Subscription Agreement (2 April 2026), Lighthouse may not use client data or metadata to train or develop any AI service, its own or a third party's. The same holds for the inputs and outputs of its AI services, directly or indirectly, except to provide the services to that client. Sending client data to any public or shared AI model needs written authorization. The agreement governs Spectra, and Lighthouse states the same position against training for IQ Review and IQ Priv.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Nothing published states how long documents, extracted data, summaries or other AI outputs are kept, or when they are deleted, in the SaaS platform or by a model provider. The privacy policy covers website data only.
Under the Spectra agreement, client data is destroyed within 30 days of termination, and personal data within 60 days under its DPA. Backups run on a rolling 30 day retention, and Lighthouse says its LighthouseIQ workflows retain no customer data. Clients manage matter hosting and archiving within Spectra, but no setting for the retention of AI inputs and outputs is described.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Nothing describes walls between matters or teams, or how the generative features and continuous active learning are kept within a matter. The eDiscovery and law firm pages cite controlled access and the SaaS launch release mentions user setup and matter management, without describing how access is segregated.
Spectra lets clients create matters, provision users and assign access by role, with delegated matter administration and less unnecessary access to review environments. Under the Information Security Addendum, the client gives each authorized user an account and a role that controls access. Review itself runs in Relativity, whose permissions apply there.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
No published agreement addresses legal demands for customer data held in the platform. The privacy policy (June 2024), which covers the website, says iCONECT may disclose a website user's name, city, state, telephone number and email address to law enforcement on a verified request without a subpoena; it does not reach documents processed in the platform.
The Spectra agreement commits to prompt written notice of a court order, regulatory requirement or subpoena, where permitted by law and feasible, so the client can seek a protective order, and its DPA commits to immediate notice of any request to disclose client personal data with a copy of the request. 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?
iCONECT works on a customer's own documents and data and does not describe retrieval of case law or other legal sources; no outside body of legal sources applies.
LighthouseIQ's question answering draws only on the documents ingested for the matter; no external legal corpus is described.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
The product does not cite legal authority, so no check of subsequent history applies, and none is described.
Lighthouse's products cite matter documents rather than case law, and no check of cited authority for subsequent history is described.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
Nothing published describes what the summaries, classification or personal information identification do when a document gives them no basis for an answer, or how low confidence is shown.
Each IQ Answers result covers one question, draws only on the matter's ingested documents and carries its source passages. Nothing describes what the product does when no supporting document is found, and no confidence signal is shown to the user.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming iCONECT. iCONECT reviews, classifies and redacts a customer's own documents for eDiscovery and breach response rather than drafting filings.
Damien Charlotin's database of AI Hallucination Cases, which collects court decisions on hallucinated AI content, has no entry for Lighthouse, LighthouseIQ or Spectra. Lighthouse's AI answers and codes from a matter's own documents rather than from case law.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
The terms of use (31 July 2024) state that information on iCONECT's pages is distributed on the understanding that the authors are not rendering legal, accounting or other professional advice. The clause governs website content, not the review platform. No ethics opinion, bar guidance or court decision on technology assisted review is named on the product pages or in iCONECT's posts.
Lighthouse's defensibility guidance says attorneys govern and validate AI outputs so they meet legal standards and reflect professional judgment, and notes that responsiveness review lacks settled case law. No ethics opinion, court AI order or rule, or judicial or bar guidance is named.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
iCONECT's pages claim savings without addressing billing. The eDiscovery page says AI email threading and deduplication reduce the dataset and that AI automations eliminate repetitive steps, the Why iCONECT page displays a counter for ROI savings delivered, and a customer release quotes Everest Discovery on reducing costs. The platform is sold to law firms and to service providers whose review charges reach clients, and nothing published addresses how AI assisted review is billed or disclosed.
Invoicing under the Spectra agreement can run through electronic billing platforms using generic timekeeper codes such as E118. That is the LEDES expense code for litigation support vendors, which law firms use to pass vendor costs to clients. Nothing addresses how firms should disclose AI assisted work or its cost to clients.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
No subprocessor list or disclosure material for a client's AI terms is published. The cyber data mining page names OpenAI, Microsoft and Google as model choices for one feature, which is not a list of the providers that process customer data, and the SOC 2 report is not offered for download or on request.
A current subprocessor list is published, with each subprocessor's role, processing location and parent, a dated change log (latest 14 September 2026), and a Data Processing Addendum and Information Security Addendum readable in the Spectra terms. No AI model provider is named: the list names Microsoft Azure for hosting and Daypack Research for AI workflow tools.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
The cyber data mining page says ingestion, extraction, review and modification actions are logged with audit trails that link each extracted data element to its source file, creating a defensible chain of custody for regulatory inquiries and legal review. Oversight produces reports of tagging errors, and the law firm page lists reviewer productivity reporting. Nothing records which model produced a summary or classification, and no export for disclosing AI use or validating continuous active learning to a court is described.
Lighthouse documents prompts and versions, validates outputs on samples reviewed by attorneys with metrics, provides rationales and citations for AI calls, and says its workflows have been accepted by regulators including the DOJ and FTC. No record for each document of the model used and the human verification is described as exportable.
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.
- Primary Law Corpus Provenance
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Which one fits
Choose iCONECT if
- You want to own the platform rather than buy a service. iCONECT licenses its software for your servers or your cloud account, on monthly or annual terms.
- Your incident response clients need notification lists fast. iCONECT's breach tool scopes breached data and pulls out personal details for notice, with an audit trail on every action.
- Images and recordings are part of the evidence. iCONECT classifies and describes images and transcribes audio inside the review platform.
Choose Lighthouse if
- Your review already runs in Relativity. IQ Review delivers predictive and generative coding into Relativity, and Spectra moves processing and hosting onto the same platform.
- Privilege review is the costly part of your matters. IQ Priv identifies privileged documents and generates the privilege log.
- You want people as well as software. Lighthouse adds forensics, collections, managed review and consulting around its AI applications.
In summary
iCONECT
iCONECT Development, LLC makes a document review platform first released in 1999 and now sold for eDiscovery, breach response and data governance. It can be installed locally, deployed in a customer's Azure, Google Cloud or AWS account, run by a hosting partner or bought as SaaS. Continuous active learning, the Oversight check on human tagging and generative tools for summaries, image classification, transcription and redaction make up its AI. According to the AI Legal Index, the SaaS service sits under a SOC 2 Type 2 report, and no price list is published.
Lighthouse
Lighthouse, founded in Seattle in 1995 and based in Bellevue, Washington, provides eDiscovery software and services. LighthouseIQ groups IQ Answers, IQ Case Strategy, IQ Review and IQ Priv on its IQ Fabric layer, and Spectra is a self serve eDiscovery platform built on Relativity. According to the AI Legal Index, Lighthouse holds ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II, and it states that client data does not train or refine general purpose generative models.
Questions buyers ask
Is Lighthouse a software vendor or a service provider?
Lighthouse sells software, LighthouseIQ and Spectra, and also delivers forensics, managed review and consulting. iCONECT licenses its platform, and hosting partners often deliver the services around it. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Does Lighthouse depend on Relativity?
Spectra is built on Relativity and IQ Review delivers coding into it, while IQ Answers and IQ Case Strategy run on Lighthouse's IQ Fabric layer. iCONECT is a review platform of its own. 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 the generative models run for Lighthouse and iCONECT?
Lighthouse runs its generative workflows on foundation models delivered through Microsoft Azure, in isolated environments. iCONECT's SaaS runs on Azure, and for breach extraction the customer picks a model from OpenAI, Microsoft or Google. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Will Lighthouse or iCONECT use client data to train models?
Lighthouse says client data is not used to train or refine general purpose generative models. iCONECT publishes no customer agreement and states no position on training. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which one covers information governance?
iCONECT sells a data governance product for data minimization, retention and deletion. Lighthouse offers information governance as a service line beside eDiscovery and review. 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.
Funds affiliated with Lightyear Capital hold a controlling stake in Lighthouse, whose group holding entity is Lighthouse Holdings, LLC. iCONECT is made by iCONECT Development, LLC. Neither vendor reviewed this page.