Jusbrasil vs Turivius: how they compare in 2026

Models do substantial work on top of a system of record that would function without them, and the vendor is explicit about which half is which. The model half is real and named: Jus IA is a generative assistant launched in March 2025 with three shipped skills, being conversational legal research, drafting of pleadings and other documents, and reference analysis, all grounded in a corpus the vendor states exceeds 1.2 billion documents. The vendor states it built its own foundational model trained on that corpus in partnership with Maritaca AI, alongside established third-party models, and that the assistant is continuously calibrated by legal specialists in a human-in-the-loop process. A second generative surface serves non-lawyers as a triage chatbot. The other half is not models and long predates them: the platform has indexed official gazettes and court systems for roughly two decades, and the search, case-tracking, legislation, doctrine, pleadings and community publishing products all function without generative capability. Strip the models out and a very large legal database business remains, which is why this is not the top grade. Terms of use of 1 September 2026, product surfaces and launch material read 7 September 2026.

The models are the engine of a core capability layered on a product that functions without them, which is the B band, and this vendor draws the line itself more clearly than most because it sells the two halves as separate environments. Turivius Clássica is the established product covering jurisprudence search, jurimetrics and knowledge management over a corpus the company reports at more than 130 million decisions from over 100 Brazilian courts. GPTuri+ is the AI environment, launched in 2025, with its own login and its own subdomain, and the company states plainly that the two accesses are independent and that a user signs in to whichever environment they hold. So a buyer can hold the platform without holding the AI, which settles the axis. What sits on the AI side is substantial and named: a generative assistant that builds the search from a natural-language or spoken description of the case rather than requiring Boolean syntax, reads uploaded contracts and pleadings and answers against them with the exact source passage, produces finished work product including opinions, comparative tables, risk maps and draft pleading structures, and runs a Jurimetria Agent that takes a legal thesis, analyses up to 500 selected decisions and returns tables, trend charts, divergences between courts and outcome predictions. The company describes that agent as the first of its kind in Brazil. What keeps it off A is the A band's own test: remove the models and the corpus, the search, the collections and the jurimetric analytics remain, and those are what the company sold for the six years before GPTuri shipped. Verified 13 September 2026.

Accuracy is measured, the design of the measurement is published, and the vendor names where it loses. The measurement: a blind comparative evaluation of four systems on real legal tasks, with Jus IA tested against ChatGPT in paid and free versions on GPT-5 and against Gemini 2.5 Pro, using identical neutral instructions. Forty-eight practicing Brazilian lawyers scored the outputs without knowing they were assessing AI systems or which system produced which answer; their profile is disclosed as one to ten years in practice, 89.58 percent holding a postgraduate qualification, drawn from civil, labor, tax, administrative, criminal and commercial practice. Five use intentions define the test set, being document analysis and summary, explaining a legal concept, mapping a jurisprudential position, generating or adjusting a document, and finding precedents. Four scoring criteria are defined, one of which is reliability, expressly measuring whether cited sources exist and support what was asserted and identifying hallucination. Results are published by criterion with means and standard deviations, and the headline is that Jus IA outperformed in 70 percent of cases. The failure modes are named rather than buried: the vendor publishes that Gemini beats it on linguistic fluency when generating or adjusting documents, attributes that to its own prioritization of correctness over naturalness, and states that it ties on completeness for document summary. The shipped mechanism sits alongside the measurement: every citation of legislation, case law, súmula or other normative content is automatically checked against the corpus at the end of each response, with references that were not found or need attention flagged in the chat, and every reference carries a link into the source document. Two limits are stated rather than glossed. The headline figure is a relative preference rate against three named generalist systems, not an absolute accuracy or hallucination rate, so a buyer cannot say how often Jus IA is wrong in isolation. And the per-criterion charts are images that did not resolve to machine-readable values on this channel, with the full study behind a link shortener. Study page and product surfaces read in full 7 September 2026.

Grounding is real and documented with linked primary sources and a described retrieval method, and no measured accuracy is published, which is the B band. The grounding is the product's central claim and it is specific rather than atmospheric: every answer is built on the platform's own corpus of Brazilian decisions, each analysis cites the decision it rests on, source traceability is named as a feature, and the vendor's own formulation is that the user verifies before using. For uploaded documents the answer carries an exact reference to the passage it came from. The retrieval method is described in outline: the assistant identifies the legal elements in a natural-language description and assembles the search itself, and the vendor contrasts this with general-purpose assistants in a published comparison table covering whether the tool works from real case law, whether the full text is reachable and whether sources are traceable. What is absent is measurement. No accuracy figure, error rate, test set or evaluation of GPTuri is published, and the one quantified claim on the estate, up to 70 percent time saved in analysis, measures effort rather than correctness. Two disclosures cut against the product and are recorded because they are the vendor's own and a buyer should see them: the terms state that Turivius exercises no editorial control over the database, limiting itself to organizing and reproducing publicly accessible data without warranty as to quality or content; and the terms state that reports, charts and decision classifications are generated automatically, may contain errors, are not exact predictions and are to be used solely as a non-exhaustive guide. Verified 13 September 2026.

The oversight position is published, repeated across two separate agreements, and stops short of describing behavior at the edge. What is published: clause 4.4.2 of the terms of use states that no artificial intelligence feature substitutes the work of a qualified lawyer and that the user is responsible for always reviewing or consulting a qualified professional; clause 5.2.1 states that responses may contain errors or omissions and places verification on the user, expressly including where outputs are used before a public body; clause 5.6.2 states that final responsibility for use of Jus IA and for generated content is exclusively the user's; and the separate enterprise terms for organizations carry a matching obligation at clause 4.3.2 requiring the client to analyze and validate content generated by AI tools. The consumer-facing assistant is separately fenced at clause 6.2.1, which states that its answers are informational and educational only and never constitute legal advice. The vendor also describes continuous human-in-the-loop calibration of the assistant by legal specialists. What is missing is the behavioral half. Nothing published describes an escalation path, a point at which the system declines to proceed on substance rather than on policy grounds, or what a user sees when the model is operating outside the corpus. The product is a chat assistant with no autonomous action surface, so several limbs of this band do not bite and are named rather than penalized: there is no agent acting unattended, no threshold at which the system files, sends or commits anything, and no automated action to define a boundary for. Both agreements and the product surfaces read 7 September 2026.

A written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer with real review surfaces, short of the full control structure, which is the B band. The commitment is explicit and appears in the product's own framing rather than in a disclaimer: the assistant delivers material ready for the user to review and finalize, the vendor's formulation being that you direct, it prepares, you finalize. The review surfaces behind that are real. Each analysis cites the decision it rests on and the user is told to verify before using; answers about uploaded documents carry the exact source passage; the full text of every cited decision is reachable inside the platform; and the vendor publishes guidance of its own on validating a legal AI whose stated aim is answers that can be checked rather than answers requiring blind trust. Mode selection is also published, the user choosing GPT, Claude or Gemini per task. What the A band asks for is missing: no threshold at which the system stops or escalates, no confidence signal, no statement of what happens after the system is wrong, and nothing describing what the Jurimetria Agent does when the evidence is thin across the up-to-500 decisions it processes. R124(2) was applied to the one candidate constraint and it does not qualify. The terms state that automatically generated reports may contain errors, are not exact predictions and must be used only as a non-exhaustive guide, which reads as the tier-and-boundary shape until the dates are checked: those terms are dated 21 September 2020 and the constraint attaches to the jurimetrics reporting that existed then, not to the generative assistant launched in 2025. What GPTuri itself publishes is a general assurance of human review, which R124(2) holds is not enough. Verified 13 September 2026.

Scale is evidenced in the vendor's own numbers and named customers are absent. What is published: more than 1.5 million searches performed through Jus IA, more than 4 million pleadings written with it, an average satisfaction score of 89 percent, a corpus of more than 1.2 billion documents, and more than 90 million decisions from 96 tribunals. Three testimonials appear with the full names of practicing lawyers rather than initials or job titles alone. The blind study is the strongest operational artifact on the record and is credited on the Citation Accuracy axis rather than counted twice here; what belongs here is its scale, being 48 evaluating lawyers recruited across regions and specialisms. A separate industry survey of 1,500 respondents was run with the São Paulo section of the Brazilian bar, Trybe and ITS Rio, which evidences the vendor's standing rather than its outcomes. What is absent is any named institutional customer, any case study tied to a firm, and any method behind the satisfaction and volume figures. The usage numbers are counts of activity rather than measures of result: nothing states how many of the 4 million pleadings were filed, revised or discarded. Product, pricing and launch surfaces read 7 September 2026.

Real deployment evidence with substance, short of joining the names to the figures, which is the B band in its own words. The naming is the strongest in this lane and it is specific. A client wall carries Deloitte, Nestlé, Gerdau, Suzano, BASF, Unimed, BTG Pactual and the law firms Tozzini Freire and Machado Meyer. Ten named case studies are published, each with its own page, covering Nestlé, Cosan and Suzano on the corporate side and Velloza, Bichara, KLA, FNCA, Bergamini, Benvenutti and GDM Consultoria Jurídica on the firm side. Testimonials are attributed to a named individual at a named firm rather than to a role, which is what makes a testimonial evidence: Julia Moreira at Tortoro, Madureira & Ragazzi, Sávio Andrade at Machado Meyer, and Walter Cesar Vasconcelos at Laerte Fonseca & Advogados Associados. Third-party validation of a kind is published too, the company having won Nestlé's global innovation prize in 2022 for a project integrating jurimetrics and AI, which is notable because Nestlé is also a named customer. What holds it off A is that the figures and the names never meet. The only outcome figure published is up to 70 percent time saved in analysis, which is unattributed, undated and carries no method, and the reach counters on the site render as zeroes to this index because they animate client-side. The ten case study pages were not opened; they corroborate a grade that already stands on the client wall and the attributed testimonials, and they are precisely what would move this row to A if any of them joins a named client to a measured result with a stated basis. Verified 13 September 2026.

Substantive published commitments on confidentiality sit against an express contractual disclaimer of responsibility for professional secrecy, and both belong on the record. The commitments are real and specific. Clause 8.3.4 of the privacy policy states that Jus IA operates independently of the platform's other databases and uses a given user's inputs and generated content only within that user's own environment, without providing that user's information to any third party or other user unless the information is publicly available. Clause 8.3 states that Jus IA material is held in a separate database so that it is not used for other purposes and third parties cannot reach it. Clause 5.3.2 states that Jus IA inputs and generated content are treated confidentially and will not be shared with the general public save under a court order. Clause 4.1.5 states that data is not used to train models. The product FAQ adds internal controls preventing personal information entered by one user from being reached by another, and clause 8.1.2 limits employee and third-party access to what is necessary, under express instructions and a contractual confidentiality obligation. Against all of that, clause 5.4.3 of the terms of use states that the user is solely responsible for the information entered into Jus IA, expressly including information protected by professional secrecy, and that Jusbrasil is not responsible for any violation of professional secrecy or any damage arising from inappropriate use. Professional secrecy is therefore addressed in the agreement, which most records on this axis cannot say, and it is addressed by allocating the entire risk to the lawyer. That is why this is not the top grade: the limb this axis exists for is engaged and answered against the buyer. Terms of use and privacy policy read in full 7 September 2026.

Confidentiality is asserted in general terms while the specific commitments a legal buyer needs are either absent or run the other way, which is the C band. The general assertion exists: the privacy policy states that all data about the user is treated as confidential, that only authorized personnel with a need may reach it, that access to the servers is through previously authorized channels with access records kept internally, that stored information is encrypted and passwords are hashed. That is a security posture rather than a confidentiality posture for client material, and the distinction matters on a product that invites lawyers to upload contracts, pleadings and case files. On the limbs the A band names, the record is weak and in one place adverse. Training use is permitted rather than excluded, the policy listing among its authorized purposes the use of user data in artificial intelligence models to personalize the platform, analyze use and improve services, and separately reserving the right to anonymize data submitted to the platform and use and share it in aggregate for other reasonable commercial purposes. Segregation is not documented: the policy states that where the platform is contracted by a firm or company the employer may access the user's profile data and colleagues may see name, photograph and email, and nothing describes walls between matters, clients or users, though Projects organize material by case or client. Retention is stated only as access logs for six months and otherwise for as long as necessary. On third-party model providers the position is unstated: GPT, Claude and Gemini are named as selectable models but nothing says what any of them may retain of a prompt or an uploaded document. Privilege and professional secrecy are not addressed anywhere. Verified 13 September 2026.

The boundary is drawn expressly, by reference to the governing statute, in both published agreements and on more than one product surface. Clause 4.7 of the terms of use states that Jusbrasil does not under any circumstances provide legal advice, consultancy or any other activity reserved to the lawyer under Article 1 of Law 8.906 of 1994, the Statute of Advocacy and of the Brazilian Bar Association, and that no legal information on the platform is to be understood as legal consultancy or legal services. The enterprise terms for organizations repeat the same statement at clause 3.5. Clause 4.4.2 states that no AI feature substitutes a qualified legal professional. Clause 4.8 states that the platform neither encourages nor performs any form of client or case solicitation, which is the other half of the Brazilian professional-conduct question and is repeated at clause 10.1(iii). The consumer-facing assistant is separately fenced at clause 6.2.1, which states its answers are informational and educational, never constitute an opinion, consultation or legal advice, and do not substitute a lawyer, with clause 6.3.2 disclaiming any involvement in fee negotiation or in the professional relationship formed. User-published content is bound at clause 10.3(iv) to the Statute, to the Bar's Code of Ethics and Discipline and to its official rulings. The mechanism goes beyond text: clause 2.2 requires a valid Bar registration number for users identifying as lawyers, clause 2.2.1 gates certain features behind validation of that registration, and the enterprise terms gate features on the client nominating Bar-registered users. The statute is named by number and article, the reserved activity is named, the solicitation rule is named, the consumer surface is separately handled, and access to professional features is conditioned on verified registration. Both agreements and the product surfaces read 7 September 2026.

A real published position on advice versus tooling, short of the supervision and competence dimension, which is the B band and the common shape it names. The position is published in the terms and is more substantive than a boilerplate disclaimer. Reports, charts, decision classifications and statistical outputs are stated to be generated automatically, to be capable of containing errors, not to be exact predictions, and to be used solely as a non-exhaustive guide to jurisdictional activity. The product framing repeats it: material is delivered for the user to review and finalize. The terms also impose a purpose limitation on the user that is unusual in this corpus and is professional-responsibility material in substance: the database and platform outputs may be used only for conducting and analyzing legal proceedings, and expressly not for marketing, campaign targeting, profiling individuals, candidate selection, transferring data to third parties or business intelligence, nor for anything incompatible with the purpose for which the underlying public data was released or that would invade the privacy of the people named in it or discriminate against them. Editorially the vendor goes further than most, publishing analyses of Brazilian courts sanctioning lawyers for fabricated citations and a guide to validating a legal AI, and connecting its own product to the verification duty those cases create. What is absent is the A band's core: no statement of who may use the product, no supervision or competence dimension, no jurisdiction limit stated though the corpus is wholly Brazilian, and no rule of professional conduct engaged. Verified 13 September 2026.

A practice is described and no governance framework stands behind it. What exists: continuous human-in-the-loop supervision of the assistant by legal specialists, stated repeatedly and in the terms of use at clause 5.2 as a system incremented by specialists across areas of Brazilian law; a statement in the product FAQ that before releasing new features the vendor performs tests and evaluations to ensure a safe, transparent and reliable experience; and internal audits and access controls asserted in the same answer. The published comparative evaluation is a real testing result and is credited on the Citation Accuracy axis rather than counted a second time here. What is absent is everything this axis asks for beyond practice. No governance framework or standard is claimed for the AI, and no ISO 42001 or equivalent is asserted. Nobody is named as accountable for the assistant's behavior. No bias, fairness or representativeness disclosure exists at any level, which is a live gap on this product specifically: the corpus is built from judicial and official-gazette material that the privacy policy itself acknowledges may contain sensitive personal data revealing religious, political or sexual orientation, philosophical conviction, participation in political or social movements, and health or genetic information, and nothing published addresses whether outputs drawn from that corpus reproduce patterns in it. No model card, evaluation protocol or red-team result is published. Terms of use, privacy policy and product surfaces read 7 September 2026.

A published governance framework with real substance, short of testing results or a named owner, which is the B band, and R36 is the ruling that puts it there: ISO 42001 is an AI management system standard and its presence alone earns B, as it did for Ontra. The About page carries an ISO 42001 mark alongside ISO 27001 and ISO 27701 and a DPO as a Service arrangement, under a heading stating commitment to the highest standards of security, privacy and artificial intelligence governance. The limit is real and is named rather than glossed, because it is what a buyer would want to test: the mark is presented as a badge with no scope statement, no certificate number, no certifying body, no issue or expiry date and no report available, so what is established from the vendor's own surfaces is the claim to the standard rather than a verifiable audited framework. Nothing else on the estate supplies the substance a certification would imply. No responsible AI or ethics page exists, no AI policy or acceptable use position, no accountable owner for model behavior is named, and the DPO as a Service arrangement is a data protection function rather than an AI governance one. No testing regime is described and no evaluation result is disclosed. Bias is not addressed anywhere, which is worth naming on this product specifically: the Jurimetria Agent produces outcome predictions and success rates by court and by rapporteur, and nothing published would let a buyer test whether those predictions are even across courts, regions or parties. Verified 13 September 2026.

Substantive published policy across most of the ground, with the two limbs that would lift it absent. What is published: a corporate information security policy and integrated management document for the information security management system, version 1.0 dated 20 January 2026, issued by the vendor's GRC and Security function, published for external use with a downloadable PDF and a version history; that document commits to risk identification, analysis and treatment, to incident management and continuity processes covering prevention, detection, response and recovery, to vulnerability treatment prioritized by impact, to monitoring, traceability and audit of information assets, to awareness training, and to senior management accountability, all structured on a plan-do-check-act cycle. On the data side the privacy policy commits at clause 8.1.2 to limiting employee and third-party access to what is necessary under express instruction and contractual confidentiality; at clause 8.3 to holding Jus IA inputs and generated content in a separate database; at clause 8.3.1 to discarding voice biometric characteristics after transcription and retaining only the text; at clause 8.3.3 to deleting Jus IA data on account deletion; and at clause 8.3.5 to definitive deletion of a conversation and its contents from the platform and internal databases when the user deletes it. Cross-border transfer is disclosed at clause 9.1. What is missing: no subprocessor or cloud provider is named anywhere, so a buyer cannot say who holds the data; and no breach notification commitment to customers is published, the incident process being described as an internal capability rather than a notification duty. Encryption is not specified. The dedicated security page at the main domain returned bot detection on this channel and is the named rebuttal route. Security policy and privacy policy read in full 7 September 2026.

Substantive published policy covering most of the ground, missing a stated incident practice, which is the B band and one of the two gaps it names. Retention is addressed with one specific figure and one general rule: site access records, meaning IP with date and time, are kept for six months, and everything else is kept only while necessary or relevant to the stated purposes or where law or a legitimate interest requires. Deletion is addressed as a right, with data removed from the servers on request or when no longer necessary, subject to legal retention. Access control is described: only authorized personnel with a need may reach the data, server access runs through previously authorized channels, and records of those accesses are kept internally, with encryption at rest, hashed passwords and TLS in transit. Subprocessors are named rather than described by category, which is more than most records manage: Amazon AWS for hosting, Mixpanel, Hotjar, Google Analytics and PostHog for product analytics, and Mercado Pago, Stone, Pagar.me and PagSeguro for payments. What is missing is incident practice. No breach notification commitment to customers was located, no notification window, no incident response description and nothing stating what a subscriber would be told or when. Two provisions are recorded because a buyer should weigh them here as well as on the confidentiality row: the policy permits use of user data in AI models to personalize and improve the service, and reserves anonymized aggregate data for other reasonable commercial purposes. Verified 13 September 2026.

The allocation is published in full, readable before signing, and runs almost entirely in one direction. Clause 4.2 puts the platform and services on an as-is footing and reserves the right to withdraw or change them unilaterally. Clause 5.6.2 states that no guarantee of any kind is given as to the results of applying information from the platform in legal practice. Clause 10.2 sets out seventeen enumerated heads of non-liability, including loss of procedural deadlines, errors in information supplied by the courts, discrepancies with official bodies, the user's use of information from the platform, and at sub-clause (xiii) all direct and indirect, incidental, special, punitive and consequential loss including lost profits and moral damages. Clause 10.3(iii) runs the indemnity the other way: the user indemnifies Jusbrasil, its affiliates, directors and employees for any loss arising from use of the platform. Clause 5.4.3 disclaims responsibility for any violation of professional secrecy. No indemnity is given to the customer for anything, including third-party intellectual property claims, no liability cap or floor is stated, no warranty is offered, no service level is committed and no insurance position is published. The enterprise terms repeat the exclusions with no cap either. What keeps this off the floor is that the allocation is comprehensively published and readable rather than absent, that a seven-day refund right is stated at clause 3.4.1, and that the vendor publishes twelve prior versions of the agreement so a buyer can see how the allocation has moved. On the question this axis asks, the published answer is that the lawyer bears the loss. Terms of use read in full 7 September 2026.

A real published position on liability, short of the full picture, which is the B band. What lifts this above a standard disclaimer is a warranty the vendor gives about the thing a Brazilian legal buyer would actually worry about. The terms record that to make the platform available Turivius had to collect, store and process a large body of publicly available data including judgments and other decisions, related data and legal doctrine, which may contain personal data, and that Turivius assumes full and exclusive responsibility for the legality of that database and its use, and for questions of title, originality and any breach of third-party secrecy, intellectual property or image rights, expressly relieving the user of responsibility in those situations. That is a scoped vendor warranty with a hold-harmless attached, on the exposure the product creates by supplying scraped court data. Against it the exclusions are sweeping. Turivius, its controller, affiliates, partners and employees are stated not to be liable in any circumstance for direct or indirect damage from use of the jurimetric outputs, including outcomes that diverge from the platform's predictions, nor for direct or indirect damage, material or moral, including lost profit or revenue, arising from use of or inability to use the platform. What the A band asks for and is not published: no liability cap of any kind is stated, no service level, no insurance, and no warranty at all attaches to the AI output as distinct from the database. Verified 13 September 2026.

A developer surface exists and is documented, and no legal practice system is named. What is established from first-party material: the enterprise arm sells its solutions in API form, described in its terms at clause 1.1 as available by API, interface or other means; a documentation link is published in the enterprise site navigation and footer; a separate API product line is published; and the consumer terms at clause 2.5.2 treat unauthorised API access as illegitimate, which confirms that authorized API access exists. Two lighter integration surfaces are described in the privacy policy and product pages: browser extensions the vendor publishes, and a WhatsApp sharing path that lets a user send files and audio into Jus IA from the messaging app. What is absent is depth into the systems this axis asks about. No document management system, case management platform, word processor, email client or e-signature product is named anywhere on the surfaces read; no integrations page, connector list or partner directory was located; and nothing describes what moves in which direction. Recorded so the grade is read correctly: the API documentation is published at a URL located in the vendor's own navigation but was not opened on this channel, so its existence is established and its depth is not, and it is the named rebuttal route on this row. Both agreements, the enterprise site navigation and the product surfaces checked 7 September 2026.

No integration into the systems legal work already lives in was located, which is the D band. The page inventory was taken from the navigation and footer under R20 and there is no integrations page, no developer or API documentation, no connector catalog and no authentication model anywhere on the estate. Not one practice management system, document management system, billing platform or CRM used by Brazilian firms is named as supported, so a buyer cannot establish whether the platform connects to anything it already runs. The product is designed as a destination rather than a layer, and the features that might look like integration on a quick read are internal and are recorded here so they are not mistaken for it: Projects hold files and saved decisions inside the platform, documents are uploaded to the platform rather than synchronized from elsewhere, and the web search complement pulls legislation and doctrine into the platform's own context rather than pushing anything out. The one outbound provision located is contractual rather than technical: the terms permit the user to present platform-generated reports to third parties, individually and without altering their format. Nothing describes exporting structured data, and the terms separately prohibit running any program to scrape or index the platform, which forecloses the route a firm might otherwise take. Verified 13 September 2026.

Both limbs are addressed and neither is elaborated. On residency, clause 9.1 of the privacy policy states that personal data of users and of people named in proceedings may be stored on servers outside Brazil, expressly including in the United States, because of cloud storage contracted with companies operating data centers there, with clause 9.2 committing to appropriate contractual arrangements. That is a residency disclosure and, for a Brazilian buyer handling Brazilian matter material, an adverse one stated plainly rather than buried. On tenancy, clause 8.3 states that Jus IA information is held in a separate database from the platform's other bases, and clause 8.3.4 states that the system uses a given user's inputs and generated content only within that user's environment. Clause 4.1.5.2 adds that public data and user-entered data are not combined into a single base. Together those describe how one customer's material is separated from another's and from the public corpus. What is absent: no region selection is offered, no Brazilian-only hosting option is published despite the product being sold exclusively into Brazil, no single-tenant or self-hosted arrangement is described, no cloud provider is named, and nothing distinguishes where processing happens from where data is stored beyond the transfer statement. Privacy policy read in full 7 September 2026.

Cloud delivery with an express residency commitment and no tenancy model described, which is B because tenancy and region are co-equal limbs and publishing either clears C. Residency is stated on the home page as one of three named security commitments: data storage exclusively in Brazil, with the information remaining in national territory on trusted infrastructure. Alongside it the vendor publishes full LGPD compliance and encrypted traffic over HTTPS, SSL and TLS. The privacy policy identifies the hosting arrangement, stating that all data provided is stored on servers external both to the user's employer and to Turivius, for example on Amazon AWS, and directing the reader to that provider's own policy. What is not described is tenancy. Nothing states whether a firm's uploaded documents and saved collections sit in a shared or isolated environment, no separation model is published, and there is no on-premises or private deployment option offered or refused. One tension is named rather than smoothed, because a buyer evaluating the residency claim needs it: the storage commitment is written about storage, and the AI environment sends the user's prompts and uploaded documents to GPT, Claude or Gemini, none of which is a Brazilian service. Nothing on the estate reconciles the two, states where inference runs, or says whether anything leaves the country in the course of generating an answer. Verified 13 September 2026.

A real security governance document is published and no certification is held or claimed. What was located and read: a Política de Gestão Integrada for the information security management system, published for external use on the enterprise site with a downloadable PDF, carrying a version number, a creation date of 20 January 2026 and a named owning function of GRC and Security. It states that the management system is built to the requirements of ISO/IEC 27001 and sets out corporate security directives covering confidentiality, integrity and availability, protection against unauthorised access, use of assets only for authorized purposes subject to monitoring and audit, incident management and continuity, vulnerability and risk treatment, awareness training and senior management accountability. It applies to employees, interns and third parties. What it does not do is claim the certification. Its own opening states that certification of the management system to ISO/IEC 27001 is a strategic objective of the security function requiring a set of requirements to be met, which describes an aspiration and a program, not an attestation held. Nothing else was located: no certificate, no auditor, no SOC report, no audit period, no scope statement, no penetration test result, no trust center and no self-serve or gated artifact repository. This is therefore alignment with a named standard, documented at policy level in the vendor's own words, and independently attested nowhere. The dedicated security page on the main domain returned bot detection on this channel and is the named rebuttal route. Security policy read in full and enterprise site navigation checked 7 September 2026.

Badges appear on the site with no scope, no date and no report available, which is the C band word for word. The About page carries marks for ISO 27001, ISO 27701 and ISO 42001, together with a DPO as a Service arrangement, under a heading stating commitment to the highest standards of security, privacy and artificial intelligence governance. That set is a serious one, covering information security, privacy information management and AI management, and the AI standard in particular is held by very few vendors in this corpus. What cannot be established from the vendor's own surfaces is anything behind the marks. No certificate number, no certification body, no issue or expiry date, no statement of the certified scope, no surveillance audit record and no report obtainable by any route, gated or otherwise. There is no trust center, no security page and no compliance page anywhere in the navigation or the footer. The heading's own wording is commitment to standards rather than certification against them, which leaves a buyer unable to tell whether the marks record completed audits or an alignment program. What is published in place of evidence is a short set of assertions on the home page, being LGPD compliance, storage exclusively in Brazil and encrypted traffic, and a longer description of controls in the privacy policy covering authorized access, internal access logging, encryption at rest and hashed passwords. Those are the vendor's own statements, not independent attestation. Verified 13 September 2026.

The supply chain is partly disclosed, and the disclosed part is the vendor's own model rather than the bought-in ones, which is the reverse of the usual shape. What is named: the vendor states in its own launch material that alongside established third-party models it has its own foundational model trained on its legal corpus, developed in partnership with Maritaca AI, a Brazilian company specializing in adapting language models to particular domains and languages. Trade press quoting the vendor names the partner model as Sabiá and describes the product as combining general-purpose models with it. That satisfies both limbs for one supplier: a provider is identified and its model is named. What is not named is everything else. The privacy policy at clause 4.1.5 refers to the third-party natural language models that feed Jus IA without naming one; the terms of use at clause 5.4.1 refer to partner companies providing natural language processing services without naming one; and clause 8.4 states that AI functionality may depend on third-party technology and models subject to their policies and availability. So a buyer can establish who built the specialized model and cannot establish whose general-purpose models process their inputs. No commitment is given to notify customers when the arrangement changes, and no subprocessor list exists to cross-check against. Terms of use, privacy policy and vendor launch material read 7 September 2026.

The supply chain is partly disclosed, providers named without change notification, which is the B band exactly as written. The naming is unusually direct and it is a purchasable feature rather than a compliance footnote: GPTuri offers GPT, Claude and Gemini in one interface and the buyer selects which runs each task, with the vendor publishing a short characterization of each, versatility and speed for everyday analysis and synthesis, deep reasoning for complex analysis, long contracts and strategic argument, and extended context across multiple documents. All three are stated to read the same corpus of more than 130 million decisions. So a buyer learns which model families process its work and can choose between them, which is more control than any other record in this pull offers. Hosting is identified separately in the privacy policy, which names Amazon AWS as the external server platform. What the A band requires and is not published: no model version is named for any of the three, so a buyer cannot establish which release is running or when it changes; the provider entities behind the product names are never written out; nothing states where inference runs, which matters against the home page's commitment to store data exclusively in Brazil; nothing states what any model provider may retain of a prompt or an uploaded document; and no commitment to notify customers of a change to any of it was located. Verified 13 September 2026.

Published pricing with the unit of charge, the figures, the limits and the terms, all reachable without a sales conversation. Three tiers are named with regular monthly prices: Essencial at R$78.90, Profissional at R$108.90 and Premium at R$208.90, each shown against a promotional first-month rate, with a monthly and annual toggle and a stated annual saving of up to 33 percent. The unit of charge is published and is the AI message: 30 per month, 150 per month and unlimited across the three tiers. A comparison table quantifies seven further limits per tier, being document uploads per month at 10, 50 and unlimited, documents per conversation at 1, 5 and unlimited, file size at 10MB, 50MB and unlimited, cases with memory at 10, 50 and unlimited, and doctrine access at 3 per month then unlimited, alongside which tiers carry citation validation, procedural insights and notifications, curated news and priority support. The commercial terms are in the agreement rather than only on the page: automatic renewal at clause 3.4, self-serve cancellation at any time with benefits running to the end of the paid cycle, a seven-day refund window at clause 3.4.1, and a statement at clause 3.4.2 that where no minimum period is set there is no lock-in. An enterprise route for firms, companies and public institutions is named with payment by boleto. One discrepancy is recorded because a reader who finds it unaided should find it here too: the page's own title states a first month from R$9.90 while the body shows R$1.90 for all three tiers. Pricing page and terms of use read 7 September 2026.

Pricing is gated behind a demo request while the tier names and the feature split are published, so the shape is visible and the number is not, which is the C band word for word. The shape is genuinely visible. Two environments are named and differentiated on the vendor's own surfaces, Turivius Clássica covering jurisprudence, jurimetrics and knowledge management and GPTuri+ covering advanced legal AI for research, documents and jurimetrics, sold as independent accesses with separate logins, and the feature content of each is described at length across dedicated pages. The unit and the commercial mechanics are published in the terms, which is more than the C band assumes: the subscription is monthly, renewing automatically every thirty days, the license is personal and non-transferable with password sharing prohibited and grounds for suspension, cancellation may be made at any time and takes effect at the end of the paid month with no refund for the unused remainder, and the vendor reserves the right to change the price at any time while guaranteeing the rate in force on the first day of the current billing month. What is absent is any figure. The terms direct the reader to the site or to email for prices; the site's every purchase path, including the button labeled create an account, resolves to a single page headed schedule your demonstration, which is a booking form carrying client logos and no rate card. No entry price, no band, no per-seat rate and no minimum is published at any level, and enterprise arrangements are contracted separately under the terms' own carve-out. Verified 13 September 2026.

Coverage is described in real numbers across a single jurisdiction, and the boundaries of the offer are left unstated. What is published: more than 90 million decisions from 96 tribunals, a corpus stated at more than 1.2 billion documents, daily updating with new normative acts and recent decisions from courts across the country, and separate collections for case law, legislation, doctrine at more than 1,900 works, real filed pleadings, and community-contributed models. Practice areas are addressed as the whole of Brazilian law rather than a named list, with the study's evaluator panel drawn from civil, labor, tax, administrative, criminal and commercial practice. Buyer types are named across two arms: individual lawyers and law students on the consumer platform, and law firms, corporate legal departments, companies and public institutions through the enterprise arm, which publishes separate surfaces for each. Access to professional features is conditioned on Bar registration. What is absent is any statement of limits: no depth or lag is given per tribunal, nothing states which courts are covered in full text against summary only, no practice area or matter type is named as out of scope, and the jurisdictional boundary is implied by the sources rather than stated. Product, pricing and enterprise surfaces read 7 September 2026.

Segment coverage is described with substance and the boundaries are left open, which is the B band. The two buyer segments are addressed separately and in their own terms rather than as a single audience. For law firms the published propositions are faster research, more relevant results, centralized organization of theses and collections, and quicker delivery to clients. For in-house legal departments they are more reliable data, clearer reporting that translates legal complexity for the business, less operational work in favor of strategy, and faster internal responses to other functions. The named customer base evidences both halves, running from Deloitte, Tozzini Freire and Machado Meyer on the firm side to Nestlé, Gerdau, Suzano, BASF, Unimed and BTG Pactual in-house. Jurisdictional coverage is stated with a figure, more than 100 courts across Brazil and more than 130 million decisions, updated daily, and the company describes jurimetrics as covering the principal areas of law. What is left open is everything the A band asks for at the edges. No practice area is named as supported or unsupported, and the claim to cover the principal areas of law is exactly the unevidenced breadth claim the band below is written for, saved from it by the court and volume figures that are specific. Nothing states which courts or which years the corpus reaches, whether coverage differs between the two environments, or whether the Jurimetria Agent works across the whole corpus. Jurisdiction is Brazil throughout and is never stated as a limit. Verified 13 September 2026.