Legora vs Parachute: how they compare in 2026
A large firm platform meets a small firm workspace here, and Parachute publishes its own comparison of the two. Legora's aOS combines an Agent for multistep work, Tabular Review, Workflows and Skills, Monitors and Portal, with Word and Outlook add ins and a mobile app. ISO 42001 sits beside its SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001, and prices are quoted through sales. Parachute covers drafting from precedents, multistage contract review that flags conflicts with house policy, tabular review and Australian legislation research. Matters, workstreams, a notetaker and client invitations sit around it, with Clio, Smokeball, NetDocuments and InfoTrack connected. It publishes its terms and a price from A$400 a month and hosts data in Australia. Legora fits a firm that runs complex reviews at scale and wants clients inside its workflows. Parachute fits a small or mid sized Australian or New Zealand practice that wants drafting, review and matter work in one place with a known monthly bill.
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.
Drafting and review are the product. A single prompt becomes a draft built from the firm's industry, jurisdictions, precedents and knowledge base, and sections can be refined with the model. Contract review runs a multistage analysis that identifies each party's obligations, flags conflicts with the firm's own policies and scores risks high, medium or low. Tabular review fills a grid of defined columns across many documents, and the notetaker joins Zoom, Teams or Google Meet calls to produce summaries, decisions and actions. A model switcher and three modes route each task. Matters, workstreams, the editor and client management give the AI a workspace, but they are sold as one product with it.
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.
Every answer shows its sources, so a claim traces back to the document, the legislation or the research behind it. Questions about Australian legislation are grounded in the act and section, with a link to the source. Review findings are compared with the firm's own knowledge base, so a clause that conflicts with a house policy is flagged with the policy it conflicts with. Parachute's own buying guide tells firms to expect clickable citations, live legislation and accuracy claims backed by a method, but no accuracy figure or test set of its own is published, and case law coverage is not described.
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.
The terms treat AI content as information that may contain errors. It must not replace advice from a professional, and the privacy policy says the models assist and do not make final decisions without a chance for human review. In practice drafts open in an editor with track changes, comments and version history, and in line suggestions are accepted or rejected one by one. Firms can invite clients and act as the expert verification layer for their legal work. The user picks Paralegal, Lawyer or Senior Associate mode, or lets Auto choose, and a daily briefing ranks the day's work each morning for the lawyer to act on. No threshold at which the product stops and hands back, and no route after a wrong output, is 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.
Named customers give figures. Arisha Arif, senior legal counsel at Zed Law, says a 2.5 hour task took 20 minutes, and Simon Fletcher of Fletch Law says his lawyers save up to 10 hours a week. Founders at Nexa Legal, Zencheck AI and Locumate are also quoted. Parachute cites a 20 minute average contract review, down from two hours, and eight hours saved per lawyer each week. None of the figures comes with a date or a measurement method. InfoTrack became an integration partner in April 2026.
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.
Privilege is addressed directly. Submitting privileged or confidential material to the service does not waive privilege, under the privacy policy. Customer data is never used to train AI models, and the model providers, OpenAI, Anthropic and Google, are contractually barred from using, retaining or training on it beyond providing the service and are bound to confidentiality. Each organization's data is logically isolated, with role based access inside the firm. The published terms add mutual confidentiality with notice before any compelled disclosure. Segregation between matters inside a firm is not described.
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.
The terms say plainly that the company is not a law firm and gives no legal advice, and that AI content is for information only and must not replace advice from a professional. Buyers include law firms, chambers, in house teams and businesses without lawyers. Where a business engages a law firm through the platform, the firm alone is responsible for the advice, and Parachute acts only as a limited agent for engagement and payment. Service is limited to Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the United States and Canada, and sanctioned jurisdictions are excluded. Competence and supervision duties for lawyers are not discussed.
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.
The privacy policy states that the models assist advisory work and do not make final, binding decisions without human review, and gives individuals the right to contest automated decisions. Secure development includes automated security scanning and peer review of every code change. No AI governance framework, release testing, accountable owner or analysis of uneven output 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.
Data is encrypted in transit and at rest, each organization's data is logically isolated, and production access follows least privilege. Automated backups and monitoring run continuously. An incident response plan sets escalation paths, and Parachute commits to notify affected customers promptly after a confirmed breach. The AI subprocessors are named as OpenAI, Anthropic and Google, each contractually barred from retaining or training on customer data. After termination, customers have 30 days to export their data, after which it may be deleted, and trial or pilot data can be deleted at the end of the trial. No retention period applies to prompts during an active subscription.
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 21 September 2026, governed by New South Wales law, each party's liability is capped at the fees paid in the 12 months before the claim. Claims under the indemnities, breaches of confidentiality and prohibited uses carry a higher cap of ten times that amount, and gross negligence and intentional misconduct are not limited. Parachute defends customers against third party claims that the service infringes a patent, copyright, trademark or trade secret. AI content is provided without warranty of accuracy, and neither party answers for losses from relying on it without independent checking. Trials and pilots are as is, with no indemnity.
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.
NetDocuments connects both ways: documents import into matters and work saves back to the firm's document system, a link released in June 2026. Clio and Smokeball connect as practice management systems, InfoTrack orders can be placed from the chat, and OneDrive files are reachable. A Word add in brings drafting and review into Word, with a refreshed task pane from April 2026. Emails forwarded to a firm inbox become AI threads with their attachments, and the notetaker joins Zoom, Teams and Google Meet. Slack is listed. What syncs with Clio and Smokeball, and in which direction, is not described.
Deployment Model and Data Residency
Where the software runs and where the data sits. Multi tenant cloud, single tenant, private deployment, on premises, and whether region of residence is a published option or an enterprise conversation.
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.
Customer data is hosted in Australia. AI requests go to model providers in the United States by default, and customers that need every inference call to stay in Australia can have it processed on Australian infrastructure. Storage and model processing are therefore stated separately. Each organization is a logically isolated tenant on secure cloud infrastructure, and residency in other regions is on the roadmap. Which plans include Australian inference is not stated.
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.
The information security management system is certified to ISO 27001:2022 by Compass Assurance Services, an accredited certification body, under certificate 8818-4353-01, which is available on request. Practices are aligned with SOC 2 controls without a SOC 2 report. Scope and certificate dates are not shown, and there is no trust center.
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.
OpenAI, Anthropic and Google are named as the large language model providers, with inference in the United States by default or in Australia on request. A model switcher released in February 2026 lets users pick a model, and routing assigns models to tasks; Enterprise customers get priority model access at peak times. The specific models are not named, and no notice before a change of model or provider 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.
Standard costs A$400 a month for the firm's instance and first seat, then A$120 for each additional seat, with 20% off on an annual term billed monthly. Each plan includes a monthly allowance of requests. A Paralegal request counts as 1, a Lawyer request 3 and a Senior Associate request 15, and the allowance resets each period. Seats are pro rated when added, a 14 day trial is offered, and teams over 50 seats get volume pricing. Enterprise adds SSO, dedicated support, custom onboarding and SLAs at a quoted price. The price is shown before any seat change is confirmed.
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.
Firms of one to 200 lawyers are the target, with versions for law firms, chambers, in house teams and businesses that buy legal work. Practice pages cover family, corporate, employment, litigation, migration, commercial and property law, and Australian legislation is the research source. Service is offered in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the United States and Canada. Drafting covers documents such as privacy policies, contracts and terms of service from the firm's precedents. Practice areas outside its range are not stated.
The 12 legal signals, side by side
Recorded rather than graded. These are the questions a practitioner has to answer before a tool touches a client matter, and the answers are taken from public material only.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
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.
Documents, knowledge base content and AI interactions are used only to answer for the customer's own organization and never to train AI models. The privacy policy adds that OpenAI, Anthropic and Google are contractually barred from retaining or training on customer data. The published terms themselves contain no training clause.
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.
After termination, customers have 30 days to export their data in a machine readable format, after which Parachute may delete it, and trial or pilot data may be deleted when the trial ends. Model providers may not retain customer data. No retention period applies to prompts and outputs during an active subscription, and 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, knowledge base and AI interactions are separated from other organizations, and granular role based access limits what team members reach. Matters group threads, files and conversations. How access is restricted between matters inside a firm is not described.
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 confidentiality clause of the terms allows disclosure required by law only with prior written notice, so the other party can object or seek a protective order. Separately, disclosure to courts and law enforcement, such as on receipt of a subpoena, is listed among the uses of personal information. No transparency report is published.
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.
Research covers Australian legislation, with answers grounded in the act and section and linked to the source. The database behind it, case law coverage and the rights basis are not named, and drafting for other jurisdictions relies on the firm's own knowledge base.
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 legislation, document or research behind them, and Parachute's buying guide stresses live legislation over static training data. No check of whether a cited case or provision has since been overturned or amended 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.
The terms warn that AI content may contain errors, omissions or outdated information, and every answer shows its sources. What the product does when it cannot ground an answer, whether it declines or flags uncertainty, 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 Parachute or Veraty. Parachute attaches sources to every answer and tells users not to rely on AI content without professional review.
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.
Accuracy, sourcing and data security are covered in the terms and the buying guide, without reference to the professional conduct rules or law society guidance that bind lawyer customers in Australia, New Zealand, the UK, the United States or Canada. No ethics opinion is discussed, and no mapping of the product to such 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 buy Parachute, which cites eight hours saved per lawyer each week and contract reviews cut from two hours to 20 minutes. Firms can invite clients on retainer and bill through the platform's law firm engagements, and credits are counted per request. No guidance on billing or disclosing AI assisted work 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.
OpenAI, Anthropic and Google are named as AI subprocessors, with inference in the United States by default or in Australia on request, and the other third parties that handle personal information are listed as well. Subprocessors owe confidentiality at least as protective as Parachute's own duty to the customer. The ISO 27001 certificate is available on request, and 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.
Answers carry citations, and the editor keeps version history, track changes and threaded comments, with Word export that preserves them. The user can see which mode and model handled a request. No export ties a filing to the model, sources and reviewer, 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
- Bar Guidance Alignment
Which one fits
Choose Legora if
- You need an agent for long, multistep work. Legora's Agent plans, executes and checks work across documents and tools before handing it back.
- Your clients should run your workflows themselves. Portal gives them a branded space with the firm's methods and cited answers.
- AI governance certification is on your checklist. Legora holds ISO 42001 for its AI management system.
Choose Parachute if
- You want a published price with no sales cycle. Parachute lists its Standard plan per firm instance and seat, with a 14 day trial.
- Your practice management runs on Clio or Smokeball. Parachute connects to each of them, and to NetDocuments and InfoTrack.
- You draft and review against your own house rules. Parachute's review flags conflicts with the firm's policies and rates each risk high, medium or low.
In summary
Legora
Legora sells aOS, an agentic operating system for legal work, to law firms, in house teams, mid sized firms, private equity and the public sector. Its Agent and Tabular Review handle multistep and document heavy work, and Portal opens the firm's workflows to clients. According to the AI Legal Index, Legora encrypts data with AES 256, offers customer managed keys and holds ISO 42001, ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II.
Parachute
Parachute is an Australian legal AI workspace that drafts, reviews and researches for firms of one to 200 lawyers, with matters, workstreams and a meeting notetaker built in. According to the AI Legal Index, its terms cap liability at 12 months of fees with a higher cap for confidentiality breaches, and it defends customers against infringement claims. Customer data stays in Australia, and it holds ISO 27001:2022.
Questions buyers ask
Is Parachute a smaller firm's Legora?
Parachute's own comparison positions it that way: Legora for large firms with complex reviews, Parachute for firms of one to 200 lawyers. Each offers drafting, review and tabular review, while Parachute adds practice management connections and Legora adds an agent and a client portal. 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 Parachute publish their terms?
Parachute publishes its full terms, including a liability cap, a higher cap for confidentiality breaches and an infringement indemnity. Legora publishes terms of use and a security policy, and quotes enterprise contracts through sales. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How does each keep client data out of training?
Legora states that it will not use customer data to train or fine tune any AI model. Parachute never uses customer data for training and bars its model providers, OpenAI, Anthropic and Google, from retaining or training on it. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which suits an Australian practice?
Parachute hosts data in Australia, can keep AI inference there, and grounds research in Australian legislation. Legora sells across many markets and is aimed at larger firms and legal departments. 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 as Leya in Stockholm in 2023. Parachute is operated by Veraty Tech Pty Ltd in Sydney, backed by Rampersand and Co Ventures, and publishes a comparison with Legora on its own site. Neither vendor reviewed this page.