iCONECT vs Relativity: how they compare in 2026
Relativity and iCONECT sell review platforms to the same buyers, law firms, corporations, agencies and service providers, and part ways on scale and on how the generative layer is built. Relativity runs as Relativity aiR, formerly RelativityOne, on Microsoft Azure, with generative products for responsiveness, privilege, case strategy and breach response. Each aiR decision carries a rationale, and privilege log descriptions are drafted automatically. Relativity says 193 of the Am Law 200 rely on it. iCONECT has built review software since 1999. It can be installed on a firm's own servers, placed in the firm's cloud, hosted by one of more than 25 partners or bought as SaaS on Azure. Continuous active learning and Oversight, a quality check on reviewer tagging, come in standard licensing, and its breach response product lets a team pick a model from OpenAI, Microsoft or Google to find personal data. Relativity suits teams that want generative review at large scale in one cloud, and iCONECT suits teams that need to keep the platform in house.
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.
The platform began as an ediscovery system and still runs legal hold, collection, processing, review and production without generative AI. aiR Review, Privilege, Case Strategy, Data Breach Response and Assist sit on that base and drive its review and analysis work. Older model based features remain in use, among them the Prioritized Review classifier that learns from reviewers' coding, conceptual analytics on latent semantic indexing and sentiment analysis. Every AI capability is included with a committed data volume, and the platform is now sold under the aiR name.
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.
A study by Redgrave LLP compared aiR Review with a managed first pass review using active learning on about 45,000 documents from a public data set. Responsiveness turned on federal pharmaceutical compliance rather than topic, and a subject matter expert set the ground truth through a blind review of a random sample. aiR Review reached 88 percent recall against 64 percent, with an elusion rate of 1 percent against 3 percent. It also flagged more documents, at 29 percent precision against 39 percent, a trade off the study sets out. aiR Review used about 18 hours of attorney time against about 1,123, and the full report gives the method and statistics. Each aiR Review call cites the document passages it relies on.
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.
aiR Review explains why each document matters and cites the passages behind each call. aiR for Privilege predicts whether documents may be privileged, identifies the people involved and drafts a privilege log description. Prioritized Review learns from reviewers' coding decisions to rank what people see next and can run beside aiR Review. In the Redgrave LLP study, a subject matter expert reviewed a blind sample to set the ground truth before revisiting the documents where he and aiR disagreed. No threshold is published at which a document must go to a person, and no commitment covers what happens when an aiR call is wrong.
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.
JND, a Relativity partner, ran aiR Review on a corporate client's production and reports more than 750 hours and $85,000 saved, with project time cut by nearly 90%. JND checks aiR's calls on a random sample of about 400 documents and computes recall and precision. Microsoft's legal department reports average recall above 96% and precision of 71% on an antitrust matter, review costs down 45% to 60% and $1.6 million in projected annual savings. Lowenstein Sandler and Baker McKenzie are quoted on claiR. The customer stories carry no date.
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.
Discrete permissions control what each user reaches, and Lockbox bars administrators, Relativity staff among them, from customer data without the customer's say. Data is encrypted at rest and in transit, with customer managed keys available. Customer data processed by aiR does not train or improve third party models, and AI processing runs in the published location for each instance region. Nothing addresses training of Relativity's own models, retention periods or the handling of privileged material inside aiR.
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.
Law firms, corporate legal departments, government agencies and legal service providers use the platform, and no consumer product is offered. aiR reviews and analyzes a matter's documents rather than advising clients on the law. No position is published on advice versus tooling, on competence and supervision duties or on jurisdiction limits.
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.
Under its AI Principles, Relativity commits to building AI for defined legal data tasks, to explaining how its models are trained and what each one looks at, and to testing models for bias. Where bias appears, the principles commit it to pause, consider mitigations, document its decisions and tell customers each model's appropriate use. The principles also state plainly that AI systems, Relativity's included, can give wrong results or contribute to biased decisions. aiR systems are updated regularly to improve quality, accuracy and consistency, so their output can change over time. No AI management certification, named accountable owner or bias test result appears.
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.
By default, Relativity encrypts data at rest and in transit, and customer managed keys give the customer control of its encryption key. Lockbox keeps administrators, Relativity's own included, out of customer data unless the customer grants access, and customers can audit and revoke that access in real time. Security Center, built by the Calder7 security team, maps logins, flags users without two factor authentication and sends alerts on unusual events. No retention period, deletion schedule for prompts and aiR output, or subprocessor list is 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.
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.
No customer agreement, master terms or service level terms are published, so indemnity, liability caps, warranties and insurance for aiR output cannot be read before contracting. AI processing locations and aiR Unit fees are set by each customer's agreement, and Relativity may rate limit or queue AI features at its discretion. aiR for Privilege predicts privilege and drafts log descriptions, and nothing published allocates the loss if a privileged document is produced on its call.
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.
Collection connectors reach Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, Slack, Claude Enterprise, ChatGPT Enterprise and Gemini, with new data sources added regularly. An MCP server lets assistants such as Claude, Gemini, Copilot and ChatGPT set up workspaces, organize case data and manage matters in natural language. Open APIs and the App Hub extend the platform at no extra license cost, and Gavel brings drafting into Microsoft Word. What each connector moves, in which direction, and what an administrator configures are 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.
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.
Instance regions for Relativity aiR span the United States, Canada, Brazil, the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the UAE, South Africa, India, Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea. All of them run on Microsoft Azure. Generative AI processing can run outside an instance's own region, and Relativity publishes where it runs for each one. French, German, Irish, Dutch, Brazilian and South African instances process within the EU Data Boundary, UK and UAE instances in the UK, and Hong Kong, Japanese, Singaporean and Korean instances in Japan. The United States, Canada, Switzerland, Australia and India process in country. aiR Government runs on Azure Government, and all of its customer data is processed in the continental United States. The processing map may shift as model availability changes.
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.
ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and ISO/IEC 27018:2019 certifications, a SOC 2 Type II report, a SOC 3 report and the Cloud Security Alliance CAIQ are listed, with a request route for compliance certificates. aiR Government holds a FedRAMP Moderate authorization, the platform is assessed under IRAP at Protected, and Relativity states HIPAA compliance. Calder7, Relativity's in house security team, builds the Security Center monitoring application that customers use. Report dates and auditing firms are not 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.
aiR runs on GPT-4o, GPT-4.1 mini, GPT-5 mini, GPT-5.1 and GPT-5.2, all through Microsoft Azure services. Which model or combination serves a task depends on the aiR system's purpose and on model capability and availability. Inference locations are published for every instance region, and customer data processed by aiR does not train or improve third party models. Relativity notes that those locations may change, and it promises no notice to customers before the models or locations change.
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.
Pricing runs on a committed data volume, paid as you go or locked in on a one or three year commitment. aiR Review, Privilege, Case Strategy, Assist and claiR come with that volume, with no separate AI licenses and no per user fees. APIs, the App Hub and the MCP server carry no extra license cost, and specialized solutions are added as needed. Some aiR products consume aiR Units or carry fees set in the customer's contract. No rate per gigabyte or per unit 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.
Law firms, corporations, government agencies and legal service providers are the stated buyers, with 193 of the Am Law 200 among them and customers in more than 30 countries. Solution pages cover ediscovery, investigations, second requests, FOIA, data subject access requests, data breach response, early case intelligence and contracts, and plaintiff firms have a page of their own. aiR Government serves agencies under a FedRAMP Moderate authorization. What the platform is not built for, and which languages aiR handles, 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?
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.
Customer data processed by aiR systems is not used to train or improve third party models or services, which covers the GPT models aiR reaches through Microsoft Azure. Training of Relativity's own models is not addressed, and Prioritized Review learns from reviewers' coding decisions. No published agreement carries a training term.
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.
aiR Review writes a rationale and citations for every document, and aiR for Privilege drafts log descriptions, so each matter builds up AI generated commentary on its documents. No retention period, customer setting or deletion control is published for that output or for prompts.
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.
Discrete permissions inside the platform govern what each user reaches, so a firm keeps matter access aligned in Relativity aiR rather than inheriting a document management system's rules. Lockbox blocks administrators, including Relativity staff, from customer data unless the customer grants access, and that access can be audited and revoked in real time. Ethical walls are not named as such.
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.
No customer agreement, data processing agreement or transparency report is published, so no commitment to notify a customer of a government or law enforcement request for its data can be read.
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.
aiR draws on the customer's own collected documents rather than a vendor supplied library of law, so no legal content source, license or update cycle applies.
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.
aiR works on a matter's collected documents rather than published case law, and claiR answers from that same data with direct citations to it. No treatment signal or later history check applies to legal authority.
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.
aiR Review explains and cites each call, and aiR for Privilege ranks likely privileged documents by its prediction. No path is described for declining a call when a document does not support one, and no confidence threshold 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.
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 Relativity or aiR. aiR works on a matter's own documents and cites the passages behind each call rather than citing 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.
No named ethics opinion, such as ABA Formal Opinion 512, or state bar guidance is engaged. The AI Principles commit Relativity to openness about its AI so that customers can defend their own processes.
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.
In customer stories, JND reports cutting a corporate client's costs by nearly 60%, and Microsoft projects $1.6 million a year. The Redgrave LLP study recorded about 18 attorney hours against 1,123 for the same review. No per matter record of AI assisted work exists for billing, and nothing addresses how a firm bills or discloses that work 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.
ISO 27001 and 27018 certifications, SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 reports and the CAIQ are available through a request route, and the models and processing locations behind aiR are published. No subprocessor list, data processing agreement or client notice pack is published.
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.
Every aiR Review call explains why the document matters and cites the passages behind it, and aiR for Privilege drafts privilege log descriptions. Relativity names the models aiR uses and the processing location for each region. No single export per document brings together the model used, the passages relied on and the human review.
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.
- AI Liability and Recourse
- Prompt and Output Retention
- Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
- Primary Law Corpus Provenance
- Good Law Verification
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
- Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Which one fits
Choose iCONECT if
- The platform has to run on your own servers. iCONECT installs on premises, in a hybrid setup or in your own Azure, Google Cloud or AWS account. More than 25 hosting partners also run it for firms that outsource.
- You handle breach response as well as discovery. iCONECT's cyber data mining product extracts personal information for breach notification and links each item to its source file. The team can choose a model from OpenAI, Microsoft or Google.
- You want a check on human review included. Oversight, part of standard eDiscovery licensing, looks for tagging errors once a reviewer seeds a model with as few as fifty documents.
Choose Relativity if
- You want generative first pass review at scale. aiR for Review codes documents for responsiveness with a rationale for each decision, and aiR for Privilege flags privileged material and drafts log descriptions.
- Your firm needs the platform its peers already run. Relativity says 193 of the Am Law 200 rely on it, and it operates in more than 30 countries.
- Your security review asks for government authorization. Relativity holds SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 reports, ISO 27018 and HIPAA compliance, with a FedRAMP Moderate authorization covering aiR Government.
In summary
iCONECT
iCONECT, from iCONECT Development, LLC, is a document review and data analysis platform sold for eDiscovery, cyber breach response and data governance since 1999. It runs on premises, in a customer's cloud, through hosting partners or as SaaS on Microsoft Azure, with continuous active learning, the Oversight tagging check and generative summaries, classification, redaction and translation. According to the AI Legal Index, its SaaS platform holds a SOC 2 Type 2 report from A-LIGN, and it publishes no customer agreement or price.
Relativity
Relativity is an ediscovery and legal data platform delivered on Microsoft Azure as Relativity aiR, formerly RelativityOne, covering legal hold, collection, processing, review, production and analytics. Its aiR products add generative review, privilege identification with drafted log descriptions, case strategy and breach response, each decision carrying a rationale. According to the AI Legal Index, Relativity publishes its AI Principles and holds SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27018 and FedRAMP Moderate for aiR Government. It says 193 of the Am Law 200 rely on it.
Questions buyers ask
iCONECT vs Relativity: which fits a review team?
It turns on where the platform has to run and how much generative review you want. Relativity is one cloud platform with generative review, privilege and case strategy built in. iCONECT can run on your own servers or through a hosting partner, with machine learning and generative features that a team switches on as needed. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Can either run on premises?
iCONECT can, on a firm's own servers or in a hybrid setup, and also in a customer's own cloud or as SaaS on Azure. Relativity is delivered as Relativity aiR, formerly RelativityOne, its cloud service on Microsoft Azure. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How does each explain an AI review decision?
Relativity attaches a rationale to each aiR decision. A reviewer sees why a document was coded the way it was. iCONECT's Oversight reports likely tagging errors for the team to correct, and its breach tool links every extracted data element to its source file. 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 publish about security?
Relativity lists SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 reports, ISO 27018 and HIPAA compliance. A FedRAMP Moderate authorization covers aiR Government. iCONECT's SaaS platform holds a SOC 2 Type 2 report from A-LIGN dated September 2025, and an on premises deployment sits under the customer's own controls. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Do iCONECT and Relativity publish prices?
Neither publishes a figure. iCONECT offers monthly or annual terms and applies volume discounts automatically as data grows. Relativity publishes no rate either. 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.
iCONECT is made by iCONECT Development, LLC. Relativity runs its platform on Microsoft Azure, which also hosts iCONECT's SaaS service. Neither vendor reviewed this page.