Legora vs Magnar: how they compare in 2026
Breadth against local depth is the trade here. Legora sells aOS, an agentic operating system, to large and mid sized firms, legal departments and the public sector. Its Agent plans multistep work, Tabular Review turns a data room into a sourced grid, and Portal lets clients run the firm's workflows under its brand. Legora holds ISO 42001 beside SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001. Magnar covers similar ground for Latin American lawyers. Its agent plans work for approval, analyzes case files of up to 10,000 pages and runs tabular review, and its research reads each country's official courts and regulators. Vaults add document management with client datarooms, and the agent can act on court and registry sites. Legora publishes no price, and Magnar lists its plans. Legora fits a firm with cross border work that wants clients inside its tools. Magnar fits a Latin American firm that wants its documents, local research and court filings handled in one place under each country's law.
At a glance
All 15 axes, side by side
The same grid applied to every vendor in the index, graded from public sources. Hover a grade to see what the letter means on that axis.
AI Centrality
How much of the product is actually AI. Whether the machine learning is the mechanism the buyer is paying for or a feature layered onto conventional software, and whether the vendor is specific about which is which.
Everything Legora sells is generative. The Agent plans and executes legal work across the platform's tools, Tabular Review extracts answers from each document into a grid, research answers questions across jurisdictions, and drafting runs in Word, Outlook and the built in editor. An orchestration layer handles tool routing, memory, model selection and guardrails beneath them. Without the models there is no product left to sell.
Everything turns on the agent. A lawyer states an objective, Magnar breaks it into stages of reading, research and drafting, and the lawyer adjusts or approves the plan before it runs. It then reads the full case file, retrieves legislation and case law with citations, works in the websites it needs and leaves a structured document with its sources. Case analysis takes files of up to 10,000 pages and answers questions, builds timelines and drafts from them, while tabular review pulls defined fields from hundreds of documents into one table. Sidechat works on the document that is open, Compare explains the changes between two versions, and Monitor runs an agent every hour over official sources and keeps only the findings that meet a lawyer's condition. Vaults and electronic signature are conventional modules sold inside the same subscription, and every document stored in Vaults is open to the assistant.
Citation Accuracy and Hallucination Disclosure
Whether the vendor publishes measured accuracy on citations and assertions, grounds output to primary sources, and says plainly what its system does when it does not know. Legal has a documented public record of fabricated citations reaching filed briefs, so an untested claim of accuracy is not evidence.
Each cell in Tabular Review expands to its reasoning and the source documents behind it, and Portal answers carry links back to the exact source. Legal research works several sources in parallel, ranks them by authority and checks each finding against primary law before the answer returns. The rebuilt research layer announced on 14 September 2026 runs on an ontology of the law that maps how authorities rank and relate, including amendments and temporal validity. Its AI native citator follows a standard set and audited by former publisher attorney editors. Legora says it has cataloged more than 50 ways AI fails at legal research without publishing the list. The layer is in limited beta, and no accuracy figure, evaluation framework or hallucination rate is published.
Research answers keep each conclusion tied to the decision, regulation or official document behind it, and the original text opens in one click. The Chilean database lists its sources by name, from the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeals and the Constitutional Court to the CMF, the SII, the Comptroller General, the Labor Directorate and the environmental tribunals. Magnar counts more than 70 million laws and court decisions across the region, and the coverage of sources, courts and periods varies by country. Clause 3.4 of the terms says the AI is probabilistic and can produce errors and hallucinations. No accuracy rate, test set or failure analysis is published.
Autonomy and Oversight Model
What the system decides on its own, what a lawyer must approve, and whether the vendor documents where the review point sits. A tool that drafts under review and a tool that files without one are different products and different risks.
The Agent proposes a plan before it acts, carries out the work across documents, data sources and tools, checks whether it met the goal, and delivers work product into the project workspace for the lawyer's review and approval. It can also act without being asked, watching email, documents and projects and starting work when something needs attention. Tabular Review adds Mark as Reviewed, Lock Cells and Review Mode for team review, and full audit trails record every tool call, file access and agent action. ISO 42001 covers the AI management system, with human oversight named as a principle. No threshold at which the Agent stops for a person, and no route after a wrong output, is described.
Approval points are built into each mode. A plan appears before any run, and the lawyer can adjust or approve it. Copilot proposes an action on the contract, case or vault on screen and carries it out only once the lawyer approves. In Word, edits arrive as tracked changes. When the agent works in a court or registry site, the lawyer watches the browser live and can take over at any point, and portal sign ins need the lawyer's own credentials. Scheduled tasks run with the app closed and alert only when something changes. The terms make the client, as a legal professional, responsible for reviewing and validating every output before it goes into a filing, a contract or advice. Filing a brief through a court's electronic filing system is among the tasks shown. Whether that step needs its own approval, a confidence threshold at which work stops, and recovery after an error are not described.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
Legora counts more than 1,800 teams in over 50 markets and 100,000 lawyers on the platform. Named customers include White & Case, Crowell, Accor, Dentons Europe, Trowers & Hamlins and Grant Thornton UK, whose forensic investigations team has a published story. The customers page reports that users see a 25 percent improvement in work quality, that experienced users save 80 percent of non billable hours weekly, and that firms bill $6.4 million more per 100 lawyers a year. None of those figures carries a date, sample or method. An in house study with the analyst Ari Kaplan drew on conversations with 30 customers in nine countries.
About 30,000 users and 350 law firms worked with Magnar in September 2026, a little over a year after it started, and more than 23,000 lawyers in Chile use it by its count. Partners at three firms are quoted by name and on video. Roberto Lewin of Barros Silva Varela & Vigil speaks about the effect on associates and on hiring. Diego Rodríguez of A/C/R Legal talks about the changing role of lawyers, and Germán Barrios of Bafur Abogados calls AI a vital tool for firms. None of the quotes carries a figure, a date or a measured result, and no case study with outcomes is published. The research product's promise of hundreds of hours saved each month comes with no method or customer behind it.
Privilege and Confidentiality Posture
How client confidences are handled: attorney client privilege and work product treatment, segregation of one client matter from another, whether client data trains any model, and what the vendor commits to in writing rather than in marketing.
The general terms bar Legora from using a subscriber's confidential information to train or fine tune AI models and require the same of its subcontractors. The terms, the data processing agreement and the security measures annex are published in versions for the EU and the United States, and the annex covers least privilege access, personnel confidentiality, authorization controls and retention on customer instruction. Ethical walls and role based access are stated to keep confidential information from crossing matters or projects, on access control built on the Zanzibar authorization model, and engineers reach customer data only with the customer's written approval. Privilege and work product handling are not addressed.
Training is settled in writing. Clause 6.6 licenses customer content to Magnar only to process it for the service and states that Magnar will not use it to train its models or share it with other customers. Under the privacy policy, content is processed transiently and each organization's data is visible only to its own users. Magnar's agreements with model providers such as OpenAI, Google and Anthropic bar training, and any provider retention is limited to abuse monitoring for at most 30 days. Stored history stays until the user deletes it and is erased within 30 days of account closure. Privilege and work product are not addressed by name, and separation inside a firm runs on Magnar's own folder permissions rather than matter walls.
UPL and Professional Responsibility Posture
Whether the vendor is clear that it supplies a tool rather than legal advice, who its audience is, and how it addresses unauthorized practice of law, competence and supervision duties, and jurisdiction limits. ABA Formal Opinion 512 is the reference point. Where the advice line is not the duty a product raises, the axis is read through the nearest professional duty it does raise: judicial conduct rules and the reviewing duty for products sold only to courts, and the duty to bill for time actually spent for products that draft time entries.
Legora sells to lawyers, firms and in house teams and describes the product as working with lawyers rather than replacing them, with the Agent's output delivered for a lawyer's review and approval. No position on the advice line, no treatment of competence and supervision duties and no jurisdiction limit appears in the acceptable use policy, the general terms or the product pages.
Clause 3.3 of the terms describes Magnar as a technology assistant, not a law firm, and rules out legal representation and legal advice. Clause 3.4 states that the AI is probabilistic and can produce errors. It makes the client, as a legal professional, solely responsible for reviewing and validating any output before using it in a legal document, a filing or advice to anyone. The product is sold to lawyers, firms and legal departments, with a free plan and student pricing. Supervision of staff, competence duties and the jurisdictions where output may be relied on are not addressed.
AI Governance and Bias Disclosure
Published governance over model behavior: who owns it inside the vendor, what is tested before release, and what is disclosed about disparate output across matter types, parties, or populations.
Legora holds ISO 42001 for its AI management system, independently audited with ongoing surveillance, and publishes what the certification covers: how AI is designed, deployed, supervised and monitored, with human oversight and structured governance as the operating principles. No internal owner of AI governance is named, no results of testing on model behavior before release are published, and nothing covers uneven output across matter types, parties or populations.
ISO 42001, the AI management system standard, is in progress. Magnar describes it as covering transparency, fairness and accountability with controls for bias and explainability, and its trust center lists the certification as under way. The same trust center publishes more than 40 policies and controls, from secure development and change management to breach notification and personnel screening. No AI policy, release testing, accountable owner or finding about how output varies across countries, courts or practice areas is published.
AI Safety and Data Stewardship
Retention, deletion, access control, and what happens to prompts and documents after they are processed. Whether the vendor states its subprocessors and its incident practice, or leaves the buyer to assume.
The security measures annex sets least privilege and role based access, and centrally stored logs traceable to unique usernames, with security logs kept at least 12 months. It adds data integrity signing, background checks and confidentiality agreements for staff, and retention as the customer instructs. Subscriber environments are logically separated and full production backups run every four hours. The data processing agreement has Legora report a personal data breach within 36 hours and delete or return personal data at the subscriber's choice when it ends. The subprocessor list, last updated 6 July 2026, names each provider with its purpose, data and residency, and a new subprocessor comes with 30 days to object. Penetration tests cover the full platform twice a year.
Retention is set out by data type. User content is processed transiently. Stored history and case files remain until the user deletes them, and everything is erased securely within 30 days of account closure unless a legal hold applies. Model providers may keep content for abuse monitoring for no more than 30 days. Data is encrypted with AES 256 at rest and TLS 1.2 or higher in transit, administrative staff work on least privilege access with multifactor authentication, and penetration tests run periodically. Subprocessors appear in the trust center with entity, country, service, data types and storage location, a list last updated on 25 September 2026. Among them are Google's Gemini API, AWS hosting and Amazon Bedrock, MongoDB Atlas, GitHub, ElevenLabs and Google Workspace. As a provider registered with Chile's National Cybersecurity Agency, Magnar notifies an affected user within three hours of a confirmed breach.
AI Liability and Recourse
What the vendor stands behind contractually when its output is wrong. Indemnities, caps, carve outs, insurance, and whether any of it is published or only reachable through a negotiated agreement.
General terms and conditions are published openly in an EU version and a version for the United States. They carry numbered liability clauses, aggregate caps that apply across the subscriber and its affiliates, a separate cap of €100,000 on beta features, and a carve out the terms call an Enhanced Claim. No indemnity for third party claims arising from output, warranty on output or insurance position is stated.
Under the terms of 6 April 2026, governed by Chilean law, total liability is capped at the fees the client paid in the 12 months before the event, and lost profit, lost opportunity and indirect damages are excluded. Magnar warrants that it will provide the service professionally and use commercially reasonable efforts to keep it available. Otherwise the platform is offered as is, with no promise that legal analysis is accurate, complete or binding. Against third party claims that the platform infringes intellectual property, Magnar defends the client, provided the client gives prompt notice and hands over the defense. No carve outs from the cap, no insurance and no remedy for wrong output are stated.
Practice Systems Integration Depth
How deeply the product reaches into the systems legal work already lives in: document management such as iManage and NetDocuments, Word and Outlook, contract lifecycle management, matter management, e-billing, and court filing systems.
Legora integrates with document management systems rather than replacing them. An iManage technology partnership works through iManage APIs, and SharePoint, Box, virtual data rooms and contract lifecycle systems feed documents in. Add ins bring the Agent and playbooks into Word and Outlook, EDGAR sits among the research sources, and MCP connectors and third party legal services feed the Agent's context. A plugin released on 17 September 2026 brings Legora's grounded answers into ChatGPT Enterprise. What each connection moves, in which direction and what an administrator configures is not documented.
A Word add in analyzes the open document and proposes edits as tracked changes, and Magnar also works in Outlook. Google Drive connects on paid plans, while OneDrive, NetDocuments and iManage are listed as coming soon. Magnar Drive mirrors Vaults in Finder or File Explorer. A lawyer edits a file in Word, Magnar records the new version on save, permissions stay in Magnar, and files download only when needed. Client datarooms let a client sign in by email to the folders the firm shares. Court, registry and apostille sites are reached through the agent's own browser, and Google Workspace sign on and Gmail access are optional. The Enterprise plan adds custom integrations, with no description of what they move.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
Legora runs separate arrangements for the EU, the United States and Asia Pacific. Its subprocessor list sets out hosting and AI model providers by region, Microsoft, AWS and Google among them, with EU customers' data held in the EU and EEA. Storage is tiered to data sensitivity, technical teams in the EU and the United States support local clients, and subscriber environments are logically separated. No customer selection of region inside a tier is described, and where processing happens is not separated from where data is stored.
Lawyers reach the product in a browser or through desktop and mobile apps, as cloud software. Each organization's data is isolated from other Magnar users. Hosting, the database and model inference run in the United States on AWS, MongoDB Atlas and Google, and the privacy policy covers processing outside Chile through adequacy findings or standard contractual clauses. No regional hosting choice, private deployment or difference between tiers in where data sits is offered.
Security Certifications and Trust Center
Independent attestation a buyer can pull without a sales call: SOC 2, ISO 27001, penetration test summaries, a trust center with current reports and named scope rather than a badge image.
ISO 27001:2022 with a yearly audit, SOC 2 Type II and ISO 42001 for the AI management system are all current. The trust center at security.legora.com carries a resources section and a data flow diagram, and the security whitepapers and security measures annex are published without a gate. Penetration tests run twice a year under an assume breach method. The certifying auditor is not named.
ISO 27001:2022 certification covers the servers, databases, internal processes and handling of customer information, and a SOC 2 Type 2 report covers security, availability and confidentiality controls over a period. Compliance status, controls and more than 40 policies sit in a trust center, with documents released through a request access step. The auditor and the report period are not shown. ISO 42001 is in progress.
Model Supply Chain Disclosure
Which models sit underneath, whose they are, where they run, and whether the vendor commits to telling customers when that changes. A legal buyer inherits every dependency it cannot see.
The subprocessor list names Microsoft, AWS and Google for hosting, infrastructure and AI models and OpenAI for AI models, with DeepL for optional translation and Linkup Labs for web results, each with its residency. New subprocessors are announced by updating the list, with 30 days for the subscriber to object. An orchestration layer handles model selection across tasks. No model or model version is named, and nothing states which provider serves which feature.
The subprocessor list names Google's Gemini API and AWS with Amazon Bedrock for model inference, both in the United States. The privacy policy names OpenAI, Google and Anthropic as examples of model providers used through enterprise APIs under zero retention agreements. Users choose between General, Light and Pro modes, and the specific models behind each are not named. Customers can subscribe to the trust center for notice of subprocessor changes, the list last changing on 25 September 2026, though no notice period for a change of model is committed.
Commercial Transparency
Whether a buyer can learn what this costs without entering a sales process: published rates, the unit being charged, what sits behind an enterprise tier, and what implementation adds.
No pricing page, rate, unit of charge or tier structure is published, and the commercial route is a demo request. The general terms are published openly, so contract terms can be read before a sales conversation even though price cannot.
Prices are published for individuals and teams. Free gives 5 credits a month with no card, and Plus costs $50 a month with 30 credits a week, three modes, a document library, Google Drive and one monitor. Team seats are priced per user each month in UF, the Chilean unit of account, plus VAT, with unlimited users and a two week free trial. Base is 0.5 UF with 10 weekly credits, Plus 1.5 UF with 40 and Pro 5.25 UF with 130. Credits pay for questions and file processing. Extra use on team plans is billed at whichever costs less, extra credits or the next plan up, and price rises need 30 days' notice. Enterprise is quoted, and there are no setup fees.
Firm and Practice Coverage
Who the product is actually built for. AmLaw, midlaw, small firm and solo, in house departments, government and courts, and which practice areas are supported rather than merely claimed.
Legora serves large law firms, small and mid sized firms, in house legal departments, the public sector and professional services, with solution pages for M&A, litigation, banking, insurance, private equity and tax. Multi jurisdiction and cross border work are stated strengths, with research sources across Europe and federal and state law in the United States. No firm size or practice area is named as outside its scope.
Lawyers, law firms and corporate legal departments use the product in Chile, Peru, Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay, Ecuador and Costa Rica, and Brazil and Mexico are opening with local teams and offices. Visitors from other countries are told it is not yet available there. Research depth follows each country's sources. In Chile those span civil, criminal and labor courts, tax, financial market, competition, environmental, consumer and social security bodies, and the Inter American Court of Human Rights. Availability of sources, courts and periods varies by jurisdiction. Students get a validated discount on individual plans, and teams of any size can mix seat levels. Which practice areas fall outside the product is not stated.
The 12 legal signals, side by side
Recorded rather than graded. These are the questions a practitioner has to answer before a tool touches a client matter, and the answers are taken from public material only.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
Under the heading Feedback, Usage Data and no training, Legora's general terms bar it from using a subscriber's confidential information to train or fine tune AI models and bar its subcontractors from doing so. Legora may use usage data to develop and improve the services, and shares it outside the company only when aggregated and anonymized. The home page and security page repeat the commitment as zero AI training on customer data.
Clause 6.6 of the terms licenses customer content to Magnar only to process it for the service and states that Magnar will not use it to train its AI models or share it with other customers. The privacy policy repeats that content does not train Magnar's foundation models unless the user instructs otherwise. Magnar's agreements with OpenAI, Google and Anthropic bar those providers from training on it, and Google Workspace data stays outside model building under Google's limited use rules.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Section 17 of the security measures annex, dated 31 January 2025, keeps personal data under whatever retention the subscriber instructs during the data processing agreement, and clause 11 of that agreement governs return or deletion after it ends. No default retention period or zero retention setting is published. Backups of the full production environment run every four hours, and each subscriber's environment stays logically separate.
Content is processed transiently. If the user keeps chat history or case files, they remain until the user deletes them, and on account closure everything is erased within 30 days unless a legal or court order requires keeping it. Clients are expected to download their content before a subscription ends. Model providers may hold content for security and abuse monitoring for no more than 30 days. No zero retention setting is described.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Ethical walls and role based access control keep confidential information from crossing matters or projects, and full audit trails record every tool call, file access and agent action. Access control is built on the Zanzibar authorization model. How a wall is set up, and whether retrieval applies document management permissions per user at query time, is not described.
Each organization's data is reachable only by its own users. Inside the firm, Vaults organize documents by organization, client and project with granular permissions, and Magnar Drive keeps those permissions when files open in Word. Client datarooms show an outside party only the folders the firm allows, watermarking each page and logging each action. Permissions live in Magnar rather than following a firm's existing document system.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Legora's general terms let a party disclose confidential information when law or an order of an authority, regulator or court compels it. The compelled party gives the other notice of the proceeding where the law allows and cooperates in seeking confidential treatment. The data processing agreement adds notice of any communication with a data protection authority about Legora's processing. No transparency report is published.
The privacy policy lists compliance with tax, judicial or administrative orders from a competent authority among the purposes for processing data. Neither it nor the terms commit to telling the customer about such a request or to resisting it, and no transparency report is published. Breach reports go to Chile's National Cybersecurity Agency under Law 21.663, with notice to affected users within three hours.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Legora names the sources behind its research. Federal law and all 50 states in the United States are hosted on Legora, beside SEC EDGAR. European sources include France's Cour de cassation, Germany's federal statutes, Sweden's court portal, Lovdata, Retsinformation, Finland's legal database and Portugal's official gazette, and content partnerships bring in publishers. The Qura acquisition adds a Swedish database of case law, legislation and regulation. No license basis or update lag is stated for any source.
Each country has its own source list. In Chile the database names the Supreme Court, the Courts of Appeals and the Constitutional Court. It adds civil, criminal and labor courts, the environmental and competition tribunals, and regulators such as the CMF, the SII and the Superintendency of Social Security. The Comptroller General, bills before Congress and the Inter American Court of Human Rights are also listed. Monitor checks selected sources every hour for new publications. The rights basis for each source and the update schedule of the research database are not stated.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
Legora is building its own AI native citator on an ontology of the law, announced on 14 September 2026. The ontology captures the hierarchy of authority, how sources relate and temporal validity, so an amended rule or an overruled case is recognized as such, and former publisher attorney editors set and audit the standard. The technology comes from the Qura and Wexler acquisitions. The citator is in limited beta, with general availability planned for the fourth quarter of 2026, and no coverage figure or error rate is published.
Answers cite the ruling, regulation or official document behind each conclusion, and the original opens in one click. Magnar describes tracking how each law is applied and comparing lines of precedent across courts. No flag on a decision that has been reversed or overruled, and no check of subsequent history on a cited authority, is described.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
The Agent checks whether it met the goal and loops back to adjust, and research ranks sources by authority before answering. No explicit no answer path, abstention behavior or confidence value shown to the user is described.
Errors and hallucinations are possible, the terms warn, because the AI is probabilistic, and every research answer keeps its conclusions linked to their sources. Monitor separates the documents it analyzed from those that meet the lawyer's condition, so a run with no match reports none. What the agent does when the sources do not support an answer, whether it declines or flags low confidence, is not described.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming Legora or Leya. Legora's research checks findings against primary law, and its Tabular Review links every answer to the document it came from.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which records court decisions worldwide that address hallucinated AI content and the tool involved where known, has no entry naming Magnar. Magnar's terms tell users the AI can hallucinate and require them to verify output before using it in a filing.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Legora publishes material on its own AI governance and ISO 42001 certification, and none of it engages ABA Formal Opinion 512, a state bar opinion or national bar guidance on lawyers' use of AI.
Professional responsibility for any output sits with the client as a legal professional, who must review and validate it before using it in a filing or advice. Magnar's own position is that it supplies the technology while judgment and legal decisions stay with the lawyer. No ethics opinion or guidance from a bar association in the countries Magnar serves is discussed, and no mapping of the product to professional rules is published.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Legora sells to law firms and in house teams, and its customers page reports 80 percent of non billable hours saved weekly by experienced users and $6.4 million in additional billing per 100 lawyers a year. The small and mid sized firm page pitches more matters handled without more headcount. No record of AI assisted work by matter for fee purposes, and no billing or client disclosure guidance, is offered.
Law firms and legal departments buy Magnar, and its research product promises to save hundreds of hours a month in finding and analyzing case law. Organization admins see how much each user consumes, which tracks usage by person rather than by matter. No guidance on billing clients for AI assisted work or disclosing it is published.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
Legora publishes its subprocessor list by region, last updated 6 July 2026, naming Microsoft, AWS, Google and OpenAI as AI model and hosting providers with their purpose, data categories and residency, and offers email updates. Its general terms, data processing agreement, security measures annex and acceptable use policy are published without a gate. No client facing consent or notice pack is offered, and trust center documents come through a request.
The trust center publishes a subprocessor list giving each provider's legal entity, country, service, data types and storage location, with Google's Gemini API and Amazon Bedrock named for model inference, and customers can subscribe to change notices. Policies and audit documents are released through a request access step. No client facing disclosure pack is published.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Full audit trails record every tool call, file access and agent action, Tabular Review cells link to their source documents, and Portal answers cite the exact source. No export for each document records the model used and the human verification, and no court disclosure template is offered.
Every step of the agent's plan stays visible, and each conclusion cites the source behind it. Vaults keep every version with a line by line comparison and record who uploaded what and when, and datarooms log each action. A brief filed through a court system comes back with its filing receipt. No export ties a filed document to the model used, the sources retrieved and the lawyer who verified it, and no court disclosure template is published.
The questions both sides leave open
Derived from the records above rather than written, so it cannot favor either vendor. Take these into both conversations and ask each side the same question.
- Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
Which one fits
Choose Legora if
- Your clients should work inside your methods. Portal gives them a branded space to run the firm's workflows and get cited answers from shared files.
- You need AI governance certified today. Legora holds ISO 42001 now, beside ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II, and builds access control on the Zanzibar system.
- You want your own encryption keys. Legora encrypts data with AES 256 at rest and TLS 1.2 or higher in transit, and offers customer managed keys to firms that ask.
Choose Magnar if
- Your firm practices in Chile, Peru, Colombia or Argentina. Magnar's research reads each country's official sources, and every citation opens the original ruling or regulation.
- You want documents, research and signatures in one product. Vaults keep versions and client datarooms, the agent drafts from the case file, and electronic signature closes the deal.
- You want published prices and a free start. Magnar lists a free plan, an individual plan and per user team seats, with two weeks free for teams.
In summary
Legora
Legora's aOS combines an Agent for multistep legal work, Tabular Review for large document sets, Workflows and Skills that hold a team's methods, Monitors, Lists and a new Intake module. Portal shares the firm's work with clients under its own brand, and Word and Outlook add ins bring it into daily drafting. According to the AI Legal Index, Legora commits not to train or fine tune any AI model on customer data, lets customers set retention periods and holds ISO 42001.
Magnar
Magnar is a Chilean legal AI platform for lawyers in Latin America, organized around an agent that plans, researches and drafts under the lawyer's approval. It adds case analysis for files of up to 10,000 pages, tabular review, a Word add in, hourly Monitor alerts, Vaults with client datarooms and electronic signature. According to the AI Legal Index, Magnar publishes its terms, a dated subprocessor list and per user prices. Affected users hear of a confirmed breach within three hours.
Questions buyers ask
Is Magnar a Latin American alternative to Legora?
The two overlap on agentic work, tabular review, drafting in Word and research, and a third party research profile names Legora's earlier brand, Leya, among Magnar's main competitors. Legora is built for large firms across many markets. Magnar is built country by country for Latin American civil law, with local sources for each country. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which one handles document management?
Magnar includes Vaults, with versioning, line by line comparison, AI retrieval across stored files, client datarooms and Magnar Drive for Finder and File Explorer. Legora works on documents through Tabular Review, its editor and its Word and Outlook add ins. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How do Legora and Magnar protect client data?
Legora will not use customer data to train or fine tune any AI model, encrypts data with AES 256, offers customer managed keys and lets customers set retention periods. Magnar's terms bar training on customer content, content is processed transiently, stored history is erased within 30 days of account closure, and affected users hear of a confirmed breach within three hours. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Do Legora and Magnar publish prices?
Legora quotes through a demo. Magnar lists a free plan, Plus for individuals and team seats priced per user in UF, and adds Enterprise plans on quotation. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Neither vendor paid for inclusion, placement or a grade, and neither reviewed this page before it published. Everything on it comes from public material on the dates shown. How the index grades.
Legora began in Stockholm in 2023 under the name Leya and renamed itself in 2025. Carey, a Chilean law firm, invested in Magnar in January 2026, ahead of Magnar's $8M Series A that September. Neither vendor reviewed this page.