Imagility vs LegalBridge: how they compare in 2026

AI features sit inside an immigration case and practice management platform that would still run without them. The attorney page calls Imagility an AI first immigration practice management platform. It lists AI driven intake, OCR and language processing extraction of evidence from resumes and immigration documents, automated petition drafting, predictive case analysis and an interactive Immigration Wizard. Imagility's FAQ says AI is applied through Petition Analysis and OCR extraction. Much of what those features do is described in rule terms. Petition Analysis checks fees against petition type and employer size, specialty occupation requirements, missing documents, LCA dates and work locations, and the beneficiary's qualifications against the position, which reads as structured validation rather than model judgment. Around them sit case management, deadline tracking, direct electronic filing, LCA and I-9 compliance, LawPay payments and mobile apps, all of which are workflow. Without the models, a full immigration case system remains, with slower data entry.

The AI powers the headline features of a case management platform that would still run without it. It drafts petition, support, recommendation and RFE response letters in seconds to minutes, from a case's documents and questionnaires written for each letter, in templates styled to the firm. It reads passports and other identity documents to fill intake fields, sorts uploaded evidence and flags what is missing. It analyzes RFEs and drafts the response cover letter, and gives prospective clients an eligibility evaluation from a résumé, which the firm can embed on its website. Around those sit questionnaires, USCIS form filling, petition assembly, a client portal, scheduling, electronic signature, invoicing, deadline alerts and electronic filing with USCIS, the Department of Labor and the State Department, all of which a firm could run without the models. LegalBridge says the platform replaces five or more separate tools. Without the AI, a capable immigration case system remains.

Imagility drafts immigration petitions and fills USCIS forms from extracted document data, so the question is whether a name, date, employer detail or job description carried into a filing is right; an error can mean a request for evidence or a denial. Imagility publishes claims in place of measurement. A testimonial on the home page calls the AI auto fill incredibly accurate. Imagility's FAQ says OCR extraction minimizes human error and helps attorneys build petitions with greater accuracy, and the Petition Analysis page says its checks increase a petition's success rate hugely. No extraction accuracy, drafting error rate, test set or approval rate is published. Nothing describes how drafted content is grounded in the source documents or how a user sees where a field came from. The home page's 99.9 percent compliance visibility figure is not defined.

LegalBridge claims accuracy without measuring it, and its agreement is candid about the risk. The product drafts support letters and RFE responses filed with USCIS, so what matters is whether the facts, exhibits and authorities in a letter match the record. LegalBridge's site says the AI drafts high quality letters that partners approve with minimal edits and catches typos humans miss, and that quality safeguards ensure accuracy before filing. The safeguards are not described, and no error rate, test or sample is published. Drafts draw on the case's own documents and questionnaire answers, and RFE responses cite the case's exhibit numbers, which gives an attorney something concrete to check. Section 3.2 of the Terms of Service (last updated 2 July 2026) says output may be incomplete or inaccurate or contain hallucinations, including fabricated citations or facts, and must be reviewed for accuracy, completeness and legal sufficiency before any use. LegalBridge is not responsible for any decision, filing or communication based on it.

The review loop is real for the petition, and nothing is said about the limits on everything else. Petition Analysis is framed as a virtual adjudication: it runs checks across filing requirements, the job description, missing documents, the LCA, position requirements, the beneficiary's qualifications and the employer employee relationship, produces a report of findings and recommendations, and can be rerun as many times as needed until the gaps are closed. Attorneys build petitions in the platform and file them, and employers and applicants collaborate on the same petition, so a person is in the chain before anything reaches USCIS. What the AI does on its own is not described. Nothing says whether auto filled forms or drafted petition text are marked for review before filing, or whether electronic filing requires an attorney's sign off. Nor does anything say what the applicant facing Immigration Wizard may tell an individual without a lawyer involved. The product serves individuals directly as well as firms, which is where those limits matter most.

Drafting runs through defined review steps, while some actions that reach clients run on their own. Letters follow four published steps: the AI generates a draft, the attorney refines it in a built in editor with AI help, the draft goes through a review and approval workflow, and it is then shared by public link with the client for approval and with the recommender for signature. A published guide keeps final review, accuracy checking and legal judgment with the attorney, and section 3.2 of the Terms makes the firm responsible for reviewing all output before relying on, disclosing or filing it. Other actions run without a person in the loop. The product texts clients reminders and follow ups automatically. Its website evaluation gives prospective clients an eligibility assessment before any lawyer is involved, and one case study credits it with converting 70 percent of completed evaluations into paying clients. No limits, thresholds or approval step for those actions are published.

Specific figures come with no named customer behind them, and named customers cannot be identified. The case study library, with entries dated December 2023 and August 2024, describes unnamed customers: a medium sized immigration firm in Dallas, a long established Cambridge firm specializing in employment and family immigration, and a prominent California firm said to have increased efficiency by 60 percent with bulk upload and the Immigration Wizard. The home page claims 60 percent faster petition preparation, more than 50,000 immigration workflows managed and a 4.9 rating on G2, with no period or method. Its testimonials are attributed to a senior attorney at Chen & Associates Law, a human resources vice president at GlobalTech Inc. and a visa applicant. Its row of customer names under trusted by leading law firms and enterprises lists generic names such as LawFirm Pro and GlobalCorp HR, not identifiable organizations. Nothing on the site links a result to a firm that can be identified.

Four named firms report specific figures in LegalBridge's case study library. SMA Immigration Law Firm reports cutting case preparation time by about half, with a before and after breakdown of hours by task. USA Immigration Attorneys reports growing from 150 to 450 active cases without new hires and cutting the time from retention to filing from four months to six weeks. Ascend HSI reports converting 70 percent of completed website evaluations into paying clients, and a newer study describes Zaia Law using the platform across several countries. The home page adds that more than 100 immigration firms and corporations use LegalBridge, processing more than 10,000 cases a year. The earlier studies are dated December 2025. The figures are reported results with no stated method, and one study refers to its firm by two different names.

The attorney FAQ says client immigration data is protected at every stage with end to end encryption, multi factor authentication and role based access controls under SOC 2 and ISO 27001 standards, and the home page adds enterprise encryption and GDPR compliance. Those are controls against outsiders. The platform holds passports, employment histories, asylum narratives and removal defense files, and the published documents make no confidentiality commitment about Imagility itself. The end user license agreement has no confidentiality clause, and its indemnity puts the firm on the hook for content it submits. The Privacy Policy is written for website visitors and account holders, allows aggregated information to be shared with third parties without restriction, and does not address case files. Nothing states whether customer data trains any model, which outside AI providers see it, how long case files are kept after a matter closes, or how privilege and work product are protected.

The commitments are written into the agreement, including an explicit privilege clause. Section 5.3 of the Data Processing Addendum (April 2026) acknowledges that customer data may include attorney client privileged information and work product. It bars LegalBridge from accessing, reviewing or disclosing it except as technically necessary, and commits to access controls that minimize human access. Section 3.3 forbids using customer data or anything derived from it to train, fine tune or improve any AI model, LegalBridge's or a third party's. The Terms of Service bind LegalBridge to confidentiality and bar sharing data with other subscribers. LegalBridge's home page names the AI providers, OpenAI, Anthropic and open weight models through AWS Bedrock, which may keep security logs for up to 30 days without training on them. Three gaps remain. Access inside a firm is described on product pages rather than in the agreement. The OpenRouter gateway is listed without the providers it routes to. And the Privacy Policy's retention of up to seven years after account closure conflicts with the addendum's deletion terms.

Imagility sells to three audiences at once: immigration attorneys, corporate HR and mobility teams, and individual applicants, who are invited to build their profiles, track petitions and use the Immigration Wizard. Software that drafts petitions and guides applicants through visa categories can cross into legal advice when no lawyer is involved. The only published disclaimer sits in the app policy. It says the application is not affiliated with any government entity and does not guarantee a visa, which addresses government affiliation, not legal advice. Nothing states that Imagility does not give legal advice, which features an unrepresented applicant may use, or how an attorney's review and supervision of drafted petitions is supported. Nothing addresses the notario risks common in immigration.

Section 2.5 of the Terms of Service says LegalBridge is a tool for legal professionals that gives no legal advice and creates no attorney client relationship. The Terms bar using the service to give unauthorized legal advice and require users to represent that they are licensed to practice where they use it. They make the firm responsible for reviewing output, for following professional conduct rules and for any AI disclosures owed to clients, and they disclaim any warranty that the service meets an immigration authority's, court's or bar's requirements. The website evaluation gives prospective clients an instant visa eligibility assessment from their résumé on the firm's site before any lawyer is involved. That surface carries no notice that the assessment is automated or is not legal advice. One case study features an immigration coaching and consulting firm, not a law firm, using it to turn visitors into clients. Limits by jurisdiction are not stated.

No AI governance position, accountable owner, testing before release, or finding on how predictive analysis performs across visa types or applicants is published. The attorney page says the platform continually evolves with USCIS policy updates, which describes keeping rules current, not governing the models. The questions for Imagility are specific. Its predictive case analysis and Petition Analysis judge whether a job meets the specialty occupation test and whether a beneficiary's degree, field of study and experience fit the position. An assessment that runs differently for degrees from some countries or for particular occupations would shape which petitions firms file and how. A visa score app is listed as coming soon, which would extend that kind of judgment directly to applicants. Nothing published shows that anyone measures or reviews these outcomes.

No AI governance framework, accountable owner, testing before release, or finding on how the eligibility evaluation or the drafting performs across applicants' countries, languages or visa categories is published. The training ban and privilege clause are strong data commitments, but they cover what LegalBridge will not do with data, not how it governs what the models produce. The questions are pointed here. The eligibility evaluation tells a foreign national from a résumé whether they may qualify for a visa, which could plausibly score candidates differently by country of education, employer or language, and the drafting argues extraordinary ability or national interest on a person's behalf. Work is routed across several model providers through a gateway, so the model behind a given draft can change, which makes testing before release more important. Nothing published addresses any of it.

Security controls are named, and the stewardship commitments around them are generic. The attorney FAQ lists end to end encryption, multi factor authentication and role based access controls, and Imagility's home page shows enterprise encryption. The Privacy Policy is written for the website and accounts, not case files. It says reasonable measures protect personal information and that it is kept for as long as it remains relevant, with backups possibly kept longer. It also sets out the Google API limited use commitments that apply to data received through Google sign in. A separate Immigration Hub app policy covers the mobile app in similar terms. Nothing states how long uploaded passports, visas, pay records and petitions are kept once a case closes, how they are deleted when a firm or employer leaves, which subprocessors or AI providers handle them, or how and when customers would be told of a breach. These files can include asylum and removal cases, and none of those commitments is published.

Most of the ground is covered in binding documents, which disagree in places. The Data Processing Addendum (April 2026) requires encryption, role based access, multi factor authentication, penetration testing and staff background checks. Section 6 commits to notify a confirmed breach without undue delay and within 72 hours, with set contents. The addendum requires 30 days' notice before a new subprocessor, with a right to object and terminate, and deletion within 30 days after the agreement ends, with written certification on request. The subprocessor page, current as of 25 April 2026, lists 17 entries with their purpose, from AWS hosting, MongoDB and Cloudflare to OpenAI, Anthropic and OpenRouter for AI, Recall.ai for meeting recording and PostHog for analytics. The security page adds encryption at rest and in transit on AWS and two factor authentication. Two points conflict: the Privacy Policy, last updated 19 January 2025, keeps information up to seven years after account closure, and the Terms and addendum describe data location differently.

A standard software license stands behind a product that prepares government filings. The end user license agreement provides the platform as is and with all faults, and disclaims every warranty. It states expressly that Imagility makes no representation that the platform will meet the user's requirements, achieve any intended results or work with other systems. It excludes consequential and other damages, and its indemnity requires the user to defend and hold Imagility harmless against any claim arising from use or misuse of the platform, including the content the user submits. The Immigration Hub app policy adds that the app does not guarantee the issuance of a visa. Nothing addresses a petition drafted, auto filled or analyzed with the platform that is denied because of an error the platform introduced, and no indemnity, insurance or service commitment runs to the firm. The agreement is governed by Pennsylvania law. The allocation is published, so a firm can read it before signing.

LegalBridge publishes scope and caps, and leaves output errors with the firm. The Terms of Service warrant that the service performs materially as documented and that security measures are as described. LegalBridge defends the firm against third party claims of infringement, of breach of its confidentiality obligations, or of a security breach caused by its failure to put the stated measures in place. Those indemnities sit outside the liability cap of twelve months' fees. Section 3.2 expressly disclaims output accuracy. The firm indemnifies LegalBridge for claims from reliance on inaccurate output and from any unauthorized practice claim, so a denied petition traced to a flawed draft stays with the firm. A 99 percent monthly uptime target carries service credits of up to 10 percent of the monthly fee, but the Terms exclude the AI features because they depend on third party providers. AI pricing can change during a term on 60 days' notice, with a right to drop the affected feature.

The connections that matter most to immigration work are named, and none is documented. The attorney page lists direct electronic filing, which sends petitions to USCIS from the platform, a LawPay integration for trust and operating payments, OCR bulk upload that extracts data from resumes and immigration documents into client profiles, and mobile apps for law firms and applicants. The platform also connects the parties to a case: employers, attorneys and beneficiaries share one petition, and a beneficiary's profile is created once and reused across petitions. The Privacy Policy mentions Google sign in and the limited use rules for Google data. What is missing is the rest of a firm's stack and the detail behind the named pieces. No document management, email, accounting or HR information system connection is named for the corporate side, no page says which USCIS forms electronic filing supports or what happens when a filing is rejected, and nothing describes an API.

LegalBridge names connections into the systems immigration work runs through, and describes the flow for some. It names government filing with USCIS, the Department of Labor for LCAs and the State Department's DS-160, where questionnaire answers fill the forms. It names Google Calendar and Outlook for scheduling and mail, Stripe, QuickBooks and Xero for payments and accounting, and DocuSeal for electronic signature. Zoom and Recall.ai cover meetings and recording, WorkOS covers single sign on, and an open API serves CRM and other systems. The subprocessor list confirms each as a live service rather than a plan. What syncs in each direction and what a firm must configure are not documented. Connections to practice management systems are offered only as custom work, and no immigration case system a firm might move from, such as Docketwise, INSZoom or eImmigration, is named. One FAQ describes the Stripe connection as in alpha testing while another calls it PCI compliant.

No hosting provider, region, tenancy model or deployment option is published. The attorney page describes the product as cloud based immigration law office software, and the platform runs at its own address with web and mobile access, so the delivery model is plain. Everything beneath it is absent. A firm cannot learn where passports, pay records and petition files are stored, whether its data sits alongside other firms' and employers' in shared infrastructure, whether any processing happens outside the United States, or whether a dedicated environment is available to a large corporate immigration team. The home page displays GDPR compliance, which implies European personal data may be handled, yet no European hosting or transfer mechanism is described. For a company headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts serving employers with global workforces, the region is left unstated.

Hosting and default regions are stated, but two documents describe location differently and tenancy is left out. Section 5.5 of the Terms of Service (2 July 2026) says customer data is stored in US and South Asia data centers by default for reliability and quality assurance, with other regions available under a separate written agreement. The security page says the platform runs on Amazon Web Services. Section 9.1 of the Data Processing Addendum says instead that personal data will be stored and processed in data centers across the globe unless otherwise agreed in writing, and sets transfer mechanisms for data leaving the European Economic Area, the UK and Switzerland. Under the Terms, a US immigration firm's client passports and petitions are stored partly in South Asia by default; under the addendum, the location is not fixed at all. Whether infrastructure is shared or dedicated is not stated, and where the AI providers process data depends on which model the gateway picks. The pricing plans offer no choice of region.

A named attestation is displayed, and Imagility's site does not describe it consistently. The home and About pages show SOC 2 Type II and GDPR compliance badges alongside enterprise encryption, which names a specific audited standard. The attorney FAQ describes the platform as designed with enterprise grade security meeting SOC 2 and ISO 27001 standards. That adds an ISO certification the badges do not show and softens SOC 2 Type II into meeting a standard. Nothing on the site settles whether Imagility holds a current SOC 2 Type II report, an ISO 27001 certificate, both, or has aligned its controls with them. No auditor, report period, certificate number or scope is published, there is no trust center or security page, and no route to request a report is offered short of booking a demo.

Certifications are described three ways on LegalBridge's own site, one of which says they are unfinished. The security page says LegalBridge is SOC 2 Type 2 and ISO 27001 certified, and further down describes it as SOC 2 Type I and Type II certified. The security panel on the product feature pages, including the AI drafting page, says SOC 2 is in progress, with Type I and Type II certification in progress. The public site does not show whether an audit report exists. No auditor, audit period, scope, certificate number or trust center is published, and there is no route to request a report. The security page also commits to a 72 hour breach notice, two factor authentication, encryption on AWS and no training on customer data.

The site describes AI driven intake, language processing extraction, automated petition drafting and predictive case analysis, but names no model, model provider, OCR engine, inference location or change notification. The only outside technology provider named in any policy is Google, for sign in and API data under its limited use rules. That leaves a firm unable to answer the question its clients' data raises most directly: whether a passport scan, an employment history or an asylum declaration uploaded to Imagility is sent to an outside AI provider to be read or drafted from, under what terms, and in which country. The platform markets itself as AI first and does not name even the class of provider used for extraction and drafting.

The AI providers are named in several places and covered by notice terms; the model behind each feature is not. The subprocessor page, current as of 25 April 2026, names OpenAI and Anthropic for language model services and OpenRouter as a unified model gateway. LegalBridge's home page adds open weight models through AWS Bedrock and says each provider may keep security logs for up to 30 days without training on customer data. The Enterprise plan advertises access to premium models. The Data Processing Addendum requires 30 days' notice before a new subprocessor is added, with a right to object, which covers a new provider at the top level. That leaves a real gap for this product. OpenRouter routes requests to many underlying providers, so the named gateway does not tell a firm whose model read a client's documents. Nothing says which model serves drafting, extraction or the eligibility evaluation, or in which region, and a switch between models behind the gateway would not trigger the notice.

No price, unit of charge, tier or setup fee is published anywhere on the site, and there is no pricing page. Every route to a price for firms and companies is a demo request, although a sign up link exists and a fulfillment policy page sets out how orders are handled, which suggests some self serve purchasing without saying what it costs. Immigration software is often priced per case or per user and varies sharply with filing volume, and no unit of charge is given. The individual side is similarly silent: applicants are invited to create profiles and use the lottery planner, and nothing says whether that is free or what paid features cost. The site's claim of 60 percent faster petition preparation invites a return on investment comparison that the missing price makes impossible.

Plans and charging units are published, and paid prices are not. LegalBridge's home page sets out three plans: Free, Pro, and Enterprise for large firms. Free has unlimited users, one application, five evaluations, AI document assessment, letter and exhibit drafting, forms, petition assembly and case tracking, with no credit card. Enterprise adds unlimited evaluations, RFE cases, DS-160 electronic filing, branding, premium models and dedicated support. The Terms of Service (2 July 2026) explain how charges work. Pricing is set per module and may be subscription, usage, credit, per case or hybrid. Credits meter AI features such as drafts, a case counts when it is created, and usage allowances carry overage billing. Credits cannot be pooled across unrelated accounts, and AI pricing or credit ratios can change during a term on 60 days' notice, with a right to drop the affected feature. No paid figure is published. Every route to Pro or Enterprise pricing is a demo, so a firm can try the product free and understand the mechanics without learning the cost.

The visa categories and the three buyers are named in detail, and the edges are not. For law firms the attorney page covers employment based work including H-1B, L-1, O-1, TN and PERM with LCA management and public access files; immigrant visas including EB-1, EB-2 and EB-3 with I-140 and I-485 templates; family based petitions; humanitarian and asylum cases; removal defense; and naturalization with interview and civics test reminders. For employers it adds I-9 and LCA compliance for HR and mobility teams, and for individuals a profile, petition tracking and an H-1B lottery planner. The case studies point to immigration firms in Dallas, Cambridge and California. The attorney page says the platform is designed for both high volume corporate filings and complex humanitarian or defensive cases. What is not said is where it fits poorly. No firm size range is given, no page states which forms or visa types lack drafting or electronic filing support, and no line is drawn between what an individual can do alone and what needs a lawyer.

Buyers and visa categories are set out in detail, without stated limits. The site addresses immigration law firms from solo practitioners to large firms, corporate global mobility teams and in house immigration professionals. It lists the US case types it supports. Employment visas and green cards include H-1B, O-1, L-1, EB-1, EB-2 NIW, EB-3 and EB-5. Family petitions include IR-1 and CR-1, F-2A and F-2B and K-1. Humanitarian relief includes asylum, VAWA, U visas and TPS, and consular processing runs through DS-160. Its case studies include a firm working across several countries and an immigration consulting business. The Terms of Service refer to a Family Law Module that is not described anywhere else on the site. The same company runs a separate product on its domain, CorporateIQ, for corporate law firms, covering issue spotting, redline comparison and document review. Nothing says where LegalBridge stops: which forms cannot be filed electronically, whether removal defense is supported beyond the humanitarian categories, and which systems outside the US its users in several countries rely on.