Jimini AI vs Ordalie: how they compare in 2026

The CGU defines what is sold as the "Système d'IA" and the Site as an interface for using it. Analysis, drafting and research are all model outputs, and the agentic workflow layer plans and runs tasks with several steps. The home page describes a design in which Jimini selects, orchestrates and continuously optimizes third party models for each task and builds legal reasoning, source handling and workflows on top. Remove the models and no document system or workflow engine is left underneath.

Without the models there is nothing left to sell. Terms of Sale clause 2.1 defines the subscription as three services, all run by AI: an assistant that answers legal questions and analyzes documents, a search engine that uses AI to understand links between legal documents, and generation of contracts, memos and analyses. The only other item is training and support. The legal texts underneath are free on Legifrance, and Ordalie positions itself against manual Legifrance research, so what a customer pays for is the synthesis and the citation. Pricing follows the same logic: tiers differ by which AI models are available and by query volume.

Grounding is real and documented. The research product is described as returning answers anchored in recognized sources of law. Legal Data Hunter is named in the CGU subprocessor table as the legal research provider, located in the European Union. The privacy policy describes the retrieval method: uploaded documents are indexed and split into paragraphs to support search and retrieval. What is missing is a measured figure a reader can examine. Jimini's home page shows a precision claim in a headline counter, with no method, test set or date. No failure modes are named.

Grounding is real and the reader can open it. Every answer shows its sources, with direct links to the original text, references to the article, judgment number or page, and the passages relied on; where possible the link goes to Legifrance. The documentation describes the retrieval: the assistant selects sources, shows which it chose, then sorts and synthesizes them into an answer with matching citations formatted as it writes. The user controls the scope by switching source families and jurisdictions on and off. What is missing: no accuracy figure, error rate, test set or evaluation is published, citation status is not checked, and nothing says what happens when no support is found. The marketing claims no hallucinations.

The CGU preamble, in bold at the top of the agreement, says outputs are not legal advice, are not final, must be validated by a legal professional such as an avocat, and that the user takes full responsibility for their use. The product markets agentic systems that plan, run several steps and carry legal tasks through from start to finish, with more than 200 workflows designed and validated with in house lawyers. No point is published at which an agent stops and hands back, no review surface is described inside a workflow, and nothing says what happens when an agent is wrong. The agreement requires human validation, and the control structure around it is not published.

Review tools come with a written position that a lawyer stays in charge. Every answer carries clickable source markers, the editor tracks every change so it can be commented on or reversed, and the Ledger documentation says its filters help review and do not replace checking the source. Terms of Use 5.2 says Ordalie cannot provide legal services, that its analyses are not legal advice, and that users should consult a qualified professional. Human oversight is one of the CNB dimensions it claims. What is missing: the same site markets workflows that return a finished deliverable ready to send to a client, and press material claims automation of up to eighty percent of repetitive tasks. No threshold, confidence boundary or type of work is published at which the system runs without a reviewer, and nothing says what happens after it is wrong.

A case study on the vendor's blog dated 26 June 2025 names Hoche Avocats. It describes a three month trial followed by adoption across corporate, tax, employment, technology and litigation departments, a rollout managed jointly by partners and associates, and prompts built from the firm's own agreement frameworks and M&A audit reports. Attributed quotes name Louis Oudot de Dainville, partner at Gide Loyrette Nouel, and Jacques Perotto, partner at Alerion. The Paris Bar partnership is dated May 2025 with its terms stated, three months of free access for firms of one to twenty lawyers, and Pierre Hoffman is quoted as Batonnier. More than 6,000 avocats and juristes are said to use the product. No measured outcome is documented. The Hoche study reports no result, and the home page figure for hours saved per lawyer sits in a headline counter with no method, cohort or date.

Customer names and time saving figures both appear on Ordalie's site, but never together. Its logo strip of legal teams using it daily includes Mondial Relay, Radio France, Ifop, Aramis Group, the Congres des Notaires de France, Editions Tissot, Carlini Avocats and Gouache Avocats. Three testimonials name a person and organization, including the legal department of SNCF Connect and Tech. Separately, it claims eight hours saved per week on average, a case timeline in three minutes against three hours by hand, and an hour instead of a full day. No figure is tied to a named customer, nothing is dated, and the eight hour average has no stated method.

Every part is covered and readable before signing. The CGU itself prohibits training, and the prohibition extends to suppliers. Separation is documented at both levels buyers need: data is logically partitioned by user and by organization, and personal and enterprise libraries are stored separately. Access runs through Auth0 by Okta on least privilege, with access logged and audited. Professional secrecy has its own clause, citing article 66-5 of the law of 31 December 1971 and article 2.3 of the Règlement Intérieur National. It acknowledges that the obligation is absolute and a matter of public order, and states that no data in submitted documents is accessible to third parties or used for anything other than providing the service. Retention and deletion are published by category, with a certificate of destruction on request. The position on model providers is the strongest part: each inference provider is named with its location and the basis of its zero retention arrangement. Separation between users and what the model provider may retain are both addressed.

Training, separation, privilege and model providers are all covered in the contract, while retention is left open. Training: Terms of Sale 9.1 says client data is not used to train models. Separation: case based spaces, projects per matter, role based permissions, private personal connections, and a user's own sources never visible to others. Privilege: named as a governing constraint, with clauses 7.1 and 9.3 binding Ordalie and its staff not to use or reveal transmitted documents and accepting liability for breach. One narrow exception lets developers fix a processing error; the customer can refuse it, and the copies are destroyed within twenty four hours. Model providers: inference providers must process in France, not train on client data, and not keep prompts, outputs or metadata. Retention is the gap. Deletion is well described, but no period is stated for uploaded documents, and conversation retention is thirty days in the documentation against unlimited history in the pricing table.

The CGU preamble states in bold that outputs are not legal advice and must be validated by a legal professional, and that Odysai is not a law firm and gives no legal advice. It then names the governing statute: under the law of 31 December 1971 as amended, Odysai, its officers and its employees do not carry on legal consultation, the drafting of private deeds, or representation. The audience is limited expressly to users acting in a professional capacity, and consumer mediation under articles L.611-1 of the Code de la consommation is disapplied on that basis, so there is no consumer surface to disclose on. The jurisdiction is stated throughout as continental and French law. The vendor's help center article on déontologie engages the CNB's recommendations and the EU AI Act compliance timetable. Competence and supervision rest on the validation requirement rather than on a separate statement.

Ordalie draws the advice line in its terms. Terms of Use 5.2 says it is not authorized to provide legal services, that its texts, positions and analyses are not legal recommendations or advice, and directs users to a qualified professional. It also claims alignment with the CNB's guidance on AI use by lawyers, naming human oversight and traceability, which touches the supervision duty. What is missing: the free plan is open to anyone with an email address, and nothing says the product is for professionals only or addresses use by people who are not lawyers; clause 3.1 only bars registering under a false professional status. No jurisdiction limit on reliance is stated for a product answering across several jurisdictions, and nothing explains how a supervising lawyer meets a competence duty over its output.

Governance is the weakest part of an otherwise strong record. No AI governance framework is published: no ISO 42001, no responsible AI page, no named owner for model governance, no testing before release, and nothing on uneven output across matter types or populations. The vendor's help center article on déontologie covers the EU AI Act timetable and says technical documentation, the DPA and the security policy are available on request, so the governing documents sit behind a request. ISO 27001:2022 is certified, but it is a security standard and does not answer this question. The data protection officer, Auriane Roussel, is named, but that is accountability for data protection, not AI governance.

The product is designed, Ordalie states, to align with the French national bar council's (CNB) requirements for AI use by lawyers, naming transparency, confidentiality, human oversight, data protection and traceability. That is a claim of alignment with an outside framework, with no mapping, assessment or supporting document published. SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 are security certifications, not AI governance. No one is named as accountable for AI, nothing is published about testing before a model or workflow ships, and no incident has been disclosed. Bias is not addressed. On this product the risk is concrete: answers draw on source families the user switches on and off across jurisdictions of very different depth, so quality is likely to vary by practice area and country, and nothing examines that.

Everything is published, specifically enough to hold the vendor to. Retention is set out by category. The document library and AI prompts and responses are kept for the life of the account plus 30 days, account data for one year after last connection, and billing data for ten years. Content from the Word and Outlook add-ins is not stored at all, and connector data is processed in real time with no storage. Deletion is specific: account deletion happens within the day, aggregated usage data is removed within the month, and a certificate of destruction is issued on request. Access control uses Auth0 by Okta, least privilege, and logged and audited access, with AES-256 at rest, TLS 1.3 in transit, logical partitioning by user and organization, and vulnerability testing every six months. Subprocessors are named in a table with role, location and zero retention status. Any addition or replacement comes with 30 days' notice, a right to object, and a right to terminate without penalty if the objection is not resolved. Breaches are notified to the customer within 24 working hours of being qualified, and to the CNIL within 72 hours under article 33.

Most of the ground is published in specific terms. Access control: AES-256 at rest, TLS in transit, account isolation, logged access limited to authorized people, role based permissions, and SSO on the top tier. Subprocessors: the privacy policy (article 3.4, updated 6 June 2026) names Scaleway for hosting, AI inference providers including Azure France, and Stripe for payment. Incidents: Terms of Sale 9.4 commits to notify the customer without undue delay of a personal data breach. Deletion: content is erased immediately and irreversibly from production when deleted or when its period ends, with copies left in encrypted backups until overwritten. Retention is the gap. No period is stated for uploaded documents, and Ordalie's documentation says conversations are kept for thirty days, while its pricing table sells unlimited history. The inference providers are barred by contract from keeping prompts, outputs or metadata.

Liability runs entirely one way in the CGU. The CGU's limitation clause is an exclusion and nothing more. The company is not liable for damage from unavailability caused by outside factors, from use of outputs without prior validation by a qualified legal professional, from user breach, or from external attack. The intellectual property clause adds that the company cannot be held responsible for outputs or their use, expressly including error, approximation, or content a third party may claim. There is no indemnity for the customer, no liability cap as a figure or multiple, and no warranty on the service or its output. No insurance position is published on the home page, in the CGU, the privacy policy or the legal notices, or in the trust center. What is published is a clear statement that the user bears the loss, readable before signing. The risk this product creates is wrong legal output, and the clause disclaims exactly that.

Ordalie publishes a liability position that goes beyond a disclaimer, without reaching AI accuracy. Terms of Sale 7.2 commits it to carry professional liability insurance. Clauses 7.1 and 9.3 accept that Ordalie can be held liable for breaking its confidentiality undertaking. Terms of Use 5.4 limits liability to direct and proven damages rather than excluding whole categories. What is missing: no indemnity, cap figure, insurer or cover limit, and no warranty of output. Terms of Use 5.1 supplies the service on a best efforts basis at the user's own risk, and Terms of Sale 8.2 makes the user solely responsible. The 99.95 percent availability target is stated not to be a binding obligation, though the top tier is sold with an SLA. A customer relying on a wrong answer has no published recourse.

Integrations reach the systems legal work lives in, and the depth is documented. Jimini pour Word and Jimini pour Outlook each have their own product page and are included in the subscription. Word covers drafting, analysis, correction, comparison and translation; Outlook covers drafting, thread summaries and text improvement. Connectors run to Google Drive and SharePoint. The privacy policy documents each integration's data flow. For the add-ins, document and email content, including attachments, is processed and discarded rather than stored, and only the prompt and the response are kept. For connectors, only files the user selects are accessed, processing is real time with no storage beyond immediate use, and access is revoked at once on disconnection or account deletion. Google connector handling follows the Google API Services User Data Policy. What syncs, in which direction and what the firm must enable can all be answered from published material. No legal document management system such as iManage or NetDocuments is named.

Integrations come with their direction and setup spelled out. Eighteen connectors each have a documentation page: SharePoint, Workspaces, OneDrive, Outlook, Gmail, IMAP, Google Drive, Dropbox, Box, Nextcloud, Tomorro, Eudonet, Odoo, Nuxeo, iManage, Secib Neo, Microsoft Teams and Managed APIs, with Agestia also named. They include iManage, a widely used document management system, and Secib Neo, a French practice management platform. Direction is stated per connector: iManage connects read only through OAuth with credentials from iManage Control Center, while Dropbox and Box can be given write access so output is saved back. Setup fields are published, such as tenant, site and client credentials for SharePoint, and iManage can run as one shared connection or with each member signing in. Two limits: no public developer API, and two way sync sits in the separate Vault module.

Residency is stated flatly, all customer data is stored in France, and then backed with detail. The platform at app.jimini.ai is hosted by Scaleway and S3NS, both named, with Scaleway's registered address given, and both stated to have servers in the Paris region of France. Where processing happens is published separately from where data is stored, and named for each inference provider: Mistral AI in France, OpenAI's Europe deployment in the European Union, and Anthropic Claude models through Google Cloud Vertex AI in Belgium at europe-west1. Tenancy is stated as logical partitioning by user and by organization. The marketing site is documented as setting no audience measurement cookie and storing nothing on the visitor's device. Jimini offers a single hosted deployment in one country rather than a set of options, so there are no tiers to compare.

The region, what changes by tier and where processing happens are each stated. Hosting is in France with Scaleway, named with its registration in both agreements, and the privacy policy names the Paris 2 site. The pricing table shows on premises deployment absent on the free and PRO tiers and present on MAX, with SSO and access governance, and the enterprise route adds on premises or private hosting. Storage and processing are covered separately: data is stored with Scaleway in France, and the third party inference providers, including Azure France, must by contract process the data in France. So the model call stays in France too, and the document that makes it so is named. One limit: France is the only region offered.

A public trust center is live at trust.jimini.ai, with no sales call, email capture or NDA click through. It lists the entity as ODYSAI, shows ISO 27001:2022, and lists 114 controls grouped under business operations, governance, asset management and risk management. The DPA goes further, publishing certificate number IC-IS-2506288 and its validity to 17 June 2028, so the certificate can be verified independently. Two things are missing. No certification body or auditor is named, and no attestation report is offered; the portal lists a single document without identifying it.

Two certifications, SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001, are claimed in Ordalie's own name, on the lawyer page, in an FAQ answer on client data, in a certifications panel and in the footer. An infrastructure panel gives a last audit of January 2026 and commits to annual security audits. The claims are about Ordalie itself, not its host. What is missing: no auditor, report period, certificate number or SOC 2 scope is published, there is no trust center and no route to a report, and the footer's Security link leads to the privacy policy. Nothing covers penetration testing, vulnerability fixes or incident response.

The supply chain is disclosed in detail. The CGU publishes a subprocessor table naming every provider with access to customer data, its role, its location and the basis of its zero retention arrangement. Inference runs through Mistral AI SAS in France on documented activation, OpenAI's Europe deployment in the EU under a signed contract amendment, and Google Cloud Vertex AI carrying Anthropic Claude models in Belgium (europe-west1) under written supplier approval. The table also lists Scaleway and S3NS for hosting, Gradium SAS for voice transcription, DeepL for translation, Legal Data Hunter for legal research and Cloudflare for transit only, with no storage. The privacy policy repeats the inference provider list. Changes come with 30 days' notice, a right to object and a right to terminate without penalty. One gap remains. Anthropic Claude is named as a model family, but the specific Mistral and OpenAI models are not, and the home page describes continuous selection of the best models for each task, so which model handles a given request is not disclosed.

Ordalie names a provider and no model. The privacy policy (article 3.4) and Terms of Sale 9.1 name AI inference providers including Azure France, so inference is known to run through Microsoft's French Azure services, and the models run in France under contract. What is missing: no model or version is named, and the basic and advanced model tiers are commercial labels. No notice of model or provider changes is published; the fifteen day notice in Terms of Sale 2.3 covers removing or changing a service, and the subprocessor list is accurate as of its update date only. Ordalie's own positioning, repeated in the press, says it develops its own models, and nothing reconciles that with the named third party providers.

Two named plans are published with their features. The individual plan includes all tools, the Microsoft extensions, AI workflows and data confidentiality, and can be bought online with a two week free trial and no sales contact. The organization plan adds collaboration, training and onboarding, a usage dashboard and central billing, and goes through the sales team. The CGU sets the charging terms: online rates are those shown on the site at signup, in euros excluding tax, billed monthly or annually at the subscriber's choice, with 30 days' notice of any price change and a right to cancel before it takes effect. The individual price is shown on the pricing page through an animated counter, and the CGU confirms prices are displayed at signup. Prices are published for part of the range, and the enterprise tier is withheld.

The price is published, and buying needs no conversation. The free plan costs nothing. PRO is €75 and MAX €99 per user per month excluding VAT, with ten percent off for annual billing, which makes PRO €67.50 a month. A twenty six row table compares the tiers across models, volume, history, sources, uploads, exports, collaboration, integrations, governance and support. Purchase is by card or SEPA through Stripe, seats and plan changes prorate immediately, monthly plans have no commitment and cancel in a few clicks, and invoices download directly. Enterprise beyond MAX is quoted, covering Vault, on premises or private hosting, custom connectors and pilots. Two inconsistencies: the table includes Vault and on premises deployment in MAX while the FAQ puts both in the enterprise offer, and the Terms of Sale say prices include twenty percent VAT while Ordalie's pricing page says they exclude it.

Segment coverage is described with real substance. The pricing page addresses independent avocats and organizations, splitting the latter into law firms and corporate legal departments, and the partnerships with local bars size the segment precisely, with the Paris agreement covering firms of one to twenty lawyers. The customer set spans both sides, naming law firms such as Gide Loyrette Nouel, Capstan, Hoche Avocats, FTPA and Franklin alongside corporates including CMA CGM, Petit Forestier, Léon Grosse and In Extenso. Practice coverage is evidenced through the agentic workflow library, which is filterable by affaires, civil, immobilier, pénal and public. The jurisdictional boundary is stated plainly and repeatedly as continental and French law. What is left open is the far edge: no statement says which practice areas are not supported, government use is not addressed, and the five workflow filters are a library taxonomy rather than a declared scope of support.

Who the product serves and what it covers are both described in detail. Three audiences each have a page: lawyers in private practice, in house counsel and French notaries, with named notarial customers and workflows for notaries. Firms get shared case files, role based permissions and a private space per lawyer. The sources documentation lists the 102 French codes, the courts covered and BOFiP for tax, and shows how a practitioner narrows the scope. Jurisdictions are selectable, and uncovered countries can be requested. What is missing: no firm size, unsupported practice area or government use is addressed. The coverage claim is also inconsistent. The lawyer page and FAQ claim 3.5 million official texts across eight jurisdictions, including Germany, Italy, Spain and Belgium, while the sources documentation lists France, the EU, Luxembourg, Great Britain and Switzerland and two million references.