Lexbe vs Relativity: how they compare in 2026
Relativity is the platform most large firms already run, and Lexbe sells itself as the simpler alternative for smaller litigation teams. Relativity aiR is used by 193 of the Am Law 200 and by more than 350,000 users in over 30 countries. Its aiR tools assess relevance, issues, key documents and confidential business information with citations and a written rationale for each call. Relativity's aiR for Case Strategy turns case data into narratives for deposition and trial preparation. Lexbe is aimed at boutique and mid sized firms that run discovery themselves, and it includes CoPilot and Pilot in every hosting plan. AutoPilot codes responsiveness and privilege as a paid service with a rationale and a confidence rating from 1 to 10 for each document. Security attestations differ sharply. Relativity aiR holds SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 and 27018, with FedRAMP Moderate for aiR Government, while Lexbe names no certification. Lexbe builds its case on processing more than a million documents an hour and translating foreign language documents inside the review.
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.
Under the AI sits a full eDiscovery stack. It processes more than one million documents an hour on over 10,000 processors, then indexes, deduplicates, runs OCR, groups near duplicates, threads email, redacts, Bates stamps and produces with privilege logs. Generative AI runs through three tools layered on that base. CoPilot works inside the document viewer on one document or a selected group, Pilot answers questions across a whole case, and AutoPilot codes documents for responsiveness and privilege at volume. Older machine learning sits beside them in Bayesian predictive coding, sentiment tagging, speech transcription and image recognition. Take the language models away and the processing, review and production platform still runs, which is how customers used it for well over a decade before CoPilot arrived.
The platform began as an ediscovery system and still runs legal hold, collection, processing, review and production without generative AI. aiR Review, Privilege, Case Strategy, Data Breach Response and Assist sit on that base and drive its review and analysis work. Older model based features remain in use, among them the Prioritized Review classifier that learns from reviewers' coding, conceptual analytics on latent semantic indexing and sentiment analysis. Every AI capability is included with a committed data volume, and the platform is now sold under the aiR name.
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.
Every CoPilot result links back to the document it came from, and Pilot ends each answer with links to the case documents it drew on, which open in the document viewer. Pilot uses retrieval augmented generation over the case repository, and its Strategic Insights setting widens how much of the case it brings into an answer. AutoPilot returns a written rationale with each coding call. Lexbe describes Pilot as unable to hallucinate because grounding language limits each answer to the text sent to the model, and says AutoPilot's precision and recall beat traditional technology assisted review in internal testing. No precision, recall or error figure has been released, so neither claim can be tested from outside.
A study by Redgrave LLP compared aiR Review with a managed first pass review using active learning on about 45,000 documents from a public data set. Responsiveness turned on federal pharmaceutical compliance rather than topic, and a subject matter expert set the ground truth through a blind review of a random sample. aiR Review reached 88 percent recall against 64 percent, with an elusion rate of 1 percent against 3 percent. It also flagged more documents, at 29 percent precision against 39 percent, a trade off the study sets out. aiR Review used about 18 hours of attorney time against about 1,123, and the full report gives the method and statistics. Each aiR Review call cites the document passages it relies on.
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.
Each of the three tools is framed around a supervising attorney. CoPilot follows a human in the loop model in which reviewers keep control of coding decisions and quality checks. AutoPilot is a first pass layer that returns a confidence rating from 1 to 10 and a rationale for every document. Its recommended workflow validates output against a human coded control set drawn before the run, tests a sample of the documents it did not flag, and leaves final responsiveness and privilege calls to attorneys. AutoPilot is not self serve, since Lexbe's professional services team engineers the prompts and helps with quality control. Pilot is limited to fact questions and gives incomplete answers to requests for lists across a whole case. The master services agreement calls AI output probabilistic and tells customers to apply human review to it. The confidence level at which a document goes to a person is chosen per matter rather than fixed by the product.
aiR Review explains why each document matters and cites the passages behind each call. aiR for Privilege predicts whether documents may be privileged, identifies the people involved and drafts a privilege log description. Prioritized Review learns from reviewers' coding decisions to rank what people see next and can run beside aiR Review. In the Redgrave LLP study, a subject matter expert reviewed a blind sample to set the ground truth before revisiting the documents where he and aiR disagreed. No threshold is published at which a document must go to a person, and no commitment covers what happens when an aiR call is wrong.
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.
Lexbe says more than 8,795 legal professionals have relied on the platform and quotes named attorneys at named firms. A litigation partner at Logan & Lowry says it helped a three lawyer team win a verdict of nearly $9 million against Greenberg Traurig. Partners at Richman Greer, Curry & Friend, Vladeck, Raskin & Clark, The Brodsky Law Firm and Heslin, Rothenberg, Farley & Mesiti praise its pricing, speed and support. The legal director of Disability Rights Ohio describes using it with co counsel on large document cases. An insurance defense case study covers a construction liability matter shared by five defense firms, with a Thomson Coe attorney quoted on the savings. The 70 percent cut in first level review time comes from a modeled 100,000 document example and internal testing rather than a named customer. None of the quotes is dated or carries a measured before and after figure.
JND, a Relativity partner, ran aiR Review on a corporate client's production and reports more than 750 hours and $85,000 saved, with project time cut by nearly 90%. JND checks aiR's calls on a random sample of about 400 documents and computes recall and precision. Microsoft's legal department reports average recall above 96% and precision of 71% on an antitrust matter, review costs down 45% to 60% and $1.6 million in projected annual savings. Lowenstein Sandler and Baker McKenzie are quoted on claiR. The customer stories carry no date.
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.
Section 3 of the master services agreement treats customer data as confidential and acknowledges it may be privileged or attorney work product, which Lexbe holds as agent of the attorneys on the proceeding. Lexbe discloses it only to the customer or on the customer's instruction, subject to law or a valid order, and promptly notifies the customer of a subpoena or investigative demand. Matter separation comes from seven fixed user types, case by case access and a Limited User who sees only tagged documents. Joint defense groups can share one repository while each defendant keeps its own work environment. Pilot runs on Anthropic's Claude with zero data retention, and Lexbe states that no user data from it trains any model. That promise sits in the help center rather than the agreement, and section 9 has customers accept the OpenAI, Anthropic and AWS terms on retention and training when they use the AI services. No retention period for prompts or case data is stated.
Discrete permissions control what each user reaches, and Lockbox bars administrators, Relativity staff among them, from customer data without the customer's say. Data is encrypted at rest and in transit, with customer managed keys available. Customer data processed by aiR does not train or improve third party models, and AI processing runs in the published location for each instance region. Nothing addresses training of Relativity's own models, retention periods or the handling of privileged material inside aiR.
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.
The agreement describes the platform as a supplemental tool for experienced lawyers and litigation professionals, not for people who cannot manage the litigation process unaided. Customers must be licensed attorneys or law firms, or have retained an attorney who advises them on proper use, and they rely on their own skill rather than on Lexbe for legal advice. Section 9 places every decision, piece of advice and action based on AI output with the customer, and tells it to apply human review to output that may be probabilistic. Marketing pitches Pilot as a digital lead investigator for pressure testing case themes, yet every tool is sold to litigation teams rather than to the public. No ethics opinion or jurisdiction limit is named.
Law firms, corporate legal departments, government agencies and legal service providers use the platform, and no consumer product is offered. aiR reviews and analyzes a matter's documents rather than advising clients on the law. No position is published on advice versus tooling, on competence and supervision duties or on jurisdiction limits.
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.
Lexbe refers to a Responsible AI framework that keeps the attorney in control, with output tied to source documents and a person making the final call. It also describes how AutoPilot was built. Its professional services team and an AI research and development team developed and tested a prompt engineering method that, by Lexbe's account, exceeds the precision and recall benchmark for older technology assisted review. Customers get guidance on validating output with control sets and tests on unflagged documents. The framework itself has not been released as a document, and no one inside Lexbe is named as accountable for AI. The results behind the benchmark claim are not shared, and nothing addresses uneven output across languages, custodians or document types.
Under its AI Principles, Relativity commits to building AI for defined legal data tasks, to explaining how its models are trained and what each one looks at, and to testing models for bias. Where bias appears, the principles commit it to pause, consider mitigations, document its decisions and tell customers each model's appropriate use. The principles also state plainly that AI systems, Relativity's included, can give wrong results or contribute to biased decisions. aiR systems are updated regularly to improve quality, accuracy and consistency, so their output can change over time. No AI management certification, named accountable owner or bias test result appears.
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.
Case data sits on encrypted servers in the United States on Amazon Web Services, with AES-256 encryption at rest and in transit. Access runs through seven fixed user types, optional two factor authentication and single sign on, added in February 2026. Administrators can export a log of who viewed or downloaded each document, kept for two months. Account administrators delete cases themselves, and recovery from backup may be possible for a fee, depending on the backup delete cycle. At termination Lexbe may delete customer data, and a paid case archive is available if requested beforehand. The AI integrations run with zero data retention at the model providers. The privacy policy, last uploaded in September 2021, is a general one, and no retention period during the subscription, breach notice practice or subprocessor list beyond the named AI providers is offered.
By default, Relativity encrypts data at rest and in transit, and customer managed keys give the customer control of its encryption key. Lockbox keeps administrators, Relativity's own included, out of customer data unless the customer grants access, and customers can audit and revoke that access in real time. Security Center, built by the Calder7 security team, maps logins, flags users without two factor authentication and sends alerts on unusual events. No retention period, deletion schedule for prompts and aiR output, or subprocessor list is published.
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.
Lexbe indemnifies customers against claims that the platform infringes a copyright, a United States patent or a trademark. It also indemnifies against claims arising from a breach of its section 17 warranties, which cover its authority to contract and commercially reasonable efforts to keep the platform available. A 99.9 percent monthly availability commitment carries pro rata credits as the sole remedy. Everything else is disclaimed. The service is provided as is, and AI output is used at the customer's sole risk. Lexbe takes no liability for failures in the third party libraries and services it relies on, indirect and consequential damages are excluded, and claims must be brought within two years. No liability cap figure or insurance is stated, and nothing covers a wrong coding call or summary.
No customer agreement, master terms or service level terms are published, so indemnity, liability caps, warranties and insurance for aiR output cannot be read before contracting. AI processing locations and aiR Unit fees are set by each customer's agreement, and Relativity may rate limit or queue AI features at its discretion. aiR for Privilege predicts privilege and drafts log descriptions, and nothing published allocates the loss if a privileged document is produced on its call.
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.
The Clio integration pulls matter folders from Clio into a case. A user signs in to Clio once through the Third Party Applications page and picks a matter or folders within it. Up to 3,000 documents upload at a time, and Clio folder paths are kept in the Source FilePath metadata field. Single files cannot be picked, and the link is removed from the same page. CoPilot can also be tied to a customer's own OpenAI account by pasting an API key and choosing a model. Productions received from other parties load with their load files through a .dat metadata mapping step, and outgoing productions carry load files for other review platforms. No connector to iManage, NetDocuments, Microsoft 365, Outlook or a matter management system is offered, so Clio is the only practice system in the list.
Collection connectors reach Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, Slack, Claude Enterprise, ChatGPT Enterprise and Gemini, with new data sources added regularly. An MCP server lets assistants such as Claude, Gemini, Copilot and ChatGPT set up workspaces, organize case data and manage matters in natural language. Open APIs and the App Hub extend the platform at no extra license cost, and Gavel brings drafting into Microsoft Word. What each connector moves, in which direction, and what an administrator configures are 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.
The platform is cloud only and runs on Amazon Web Services, reached through a browser on Windows, Mac or a mobile device with nothing to install. All customer electronically stored information is kept on servers in the United States, and customers in the European Union and Switzerland are covered by Standard Contractual Clauses provided on request. Where the OpenAI, Anthropic and Amazon models process documents is not stated, and no tenancy model, region choice or private deployment is offered.
Instance regions for Relativity aiR span the United States, Canada, Brazil, the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the UAE, South Africa, India, Australia, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea. All of them run on Microsoft Azure. Generative AI processing can run outside an instance's own region, and Relativity publishes where it runs for each one. French, German, Irish, Dutch, Brazilian and South African instances process within the EU Data Boundary, UK and UAE instances in the UK, and Hong Kong, Japanese, Singaporean and Korean instances in Japan. The United States, Canada, Switzerland, Australia and India process in country. aiR Government runs on Azure Government, and all of its customer data is processed in the continental United States. The processing map may shift as model availability changes.
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.
No independent security attestation is claimed for Lexbe. Its security is described as AES-256 encryption at rest and in transit, data access controls and active management of the AWS environment, with optional two factor authentication and single sign on. No SOC 2 report, ISO 27001 certificate, trust center or penetration test summary is offered.
ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and ISO/IEC 27018:2019 certifications, a SOC 2 Type II report, a SOC 3 report and the Cloud Security Alliance CAIQ are listed, with a request route for compliance certificates. aiR Government holds a FedRAMP Moderate authorization, the platform is assessed under IRAP at Protected, and Relativity states HIPAA compliance. Calder7, Relativity's in house security team, builds the Security Center monitoring application that customers use. Report dates and auditing firms are not published.
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 agreement names OpenAI, Anthropic and Amazon Web Services as the providers behind Lexbe's AI services, with Amazon Transcribe, Amazon Translate and Amazon Rekognition behind audio transcription, translation and image recognition. Release notes name the language models. GPT-4.1 and GPT-4.1 Mini were added to CoPilot in September 2025, Claude 4 Sonnet and Claude 4 Opus to Pilot and AutoPilot in June 2025, and five more OpenAI models to AutoPilot in April 2025. Pilot runs on Claude with zero data retention. Customers learn of model changes through release notes after the fact, with no advance notice commitment, and where each model runs is not stated.
aiR runs on GPT-4o, GPT-4.1 mini, GPT-5 mini, GPT-5.1 and GPT-5.2, all through Microsoft Azure services. Which model or combination serves a task depends on the aiR system's purpose and on model capability and availability. Inference locations are published for every instance region, and customer data processed by aiR does not train or improve third party models. Relativity notes that those locations may change, and it promises no notice to customers before the models or locations change.
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.
Lexbe prices by data volume, the gigabytes uploaded and hosted, billed monthly in arrears on the highest usage in the month. Plans include pay as you go accounts with no commitment, flat monthly rate plans, subscriptions of a year or more for a set capacity and hibernation for inactive cases, with volume and subscription discounts. There are no user or case fees, ESI processing is free on subscription accounts, users are unlimited, and CoPilot and Pilot come with every hosting plan. The billing policy spells out what counts toward storage, including the text index, capped at 35 percent of document size for billing. AutoPilot, professional services and forensics are billed separately at per gigabyte, per page, per document or hourly rates. No rate is published, and every plan routes to an estimate request.
Pricing runs on a committed data volume, paid as you go or locked in on a one or three year commitment. aiR Review, Privilege, Case Strategy, Assist and claiR come with that volume, with no separate AI licenses and no per user fees. APIs, the App Hub and the MCP server carry no extra license cost, and specialized solutions are added as needed. Some aiR products consume aiR Units or carry fees set in the customer's contract. No rate per gigabyte or per unit is published.
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.
Lexbe is built for boutique and mid sized law firms with document heavy cases, and also sells to corporate legal departments, managed review providers, disability rights organizations and Mac users. Practice pages cover construction, environmental, insurance defense, intellectual property, labor and employment, securities and telecommunications litigation, and the platform handles third party subpoenas, internal investigations and compliance reviews. Forensic collection covers phones, computers, email, cloud and collaboration accounts such as Slack and Microsoft Teams, social media, websites and drones. A few limits are stated. Use is meant for experienced litigation professionals working with a licensed attorney. Native upload batches should stay near 20 GB with mail files under 50 GB, and Pilot is not built for whole case list requests. No practice area, jurisdiction or firm size is excluded.
Law firms, corporations, government agencies and legal service providers are the stated buyers, with 193 of the Am Law 200 among them and customers in more than 30 countries. Solution pages cover ediscovery, investigations, second requests, FOIA, data subject access requests, data breach response, early case intelligence and contracts, and plaintiff firms have a page of their own. aiR Government serves agencies under a FedRAMP Moderate authorization. What the platform is not built for, and which languages aiR handles, 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?
Lexbe states that Pilot runs on Anthropic's Claude with zero data retention, so no user data is kept by the model provider or used to train existing or future models. It says its AI integrations generally run the same way. The master services agreement has no training term. Its license limits Lexbe's use of customer data to providing the services, including improving functions within the customer's own account. Section 9 has customers accept the OpenAI, Anthropic and AWS terms on retention and training when they use the AI services. A customer can also link CoPilot to its own OpenAI account with an API key.
Customer data processed by aiR systems is not used to train or improve third party models or services, which covers the GPT models aiR reaches through Microsoft Azure. Training of Relativity's own models is not addressed, and Prioritized Review learns from reviewers' coding decisions. No published agreement carries a training term.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Prompts sent to the model providers are not kept there, since Pilot and the other AI integrations run with zero data retention. Inside the platform, Pilot keeps past conversations, and users can share, pin or permanently delete saved prompts. No period is stated for how long prompts, outputs or case data stay on Lexbe's servers during a subscription, and at termination Lexbe may delete customer data, with a paid archive available if requested beforehand. Document access logs are kept for two months unless exported.
aiR Review writes a rationale and citations for every document, and aiR for Privilege drafts log descriptions, so each matter builds up AI generated commentary on its documents. No retention period, customer setting or deletion control is published for that output or for prompts.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
Access runs through seven fixed user types, from Account Admin to Read Only and Limited User, with case by case access granted by an account administrator. A Limited User sees only documents tagged to a shared field and has none of the case tools. For joint defense groups, one repository serves several firms while each defendant keeps a dedicated work environment for its own work product. Nothing says whether Pilot answers respect those permissions.
Discrete permissions inside the platform govern what each user reaches, so a firm keeps matter access aligned in Relativity aiR rather than inheriting a document management system's rules. Lockbox blocks administrators, including Relativity staff, from customer data unless the customer grants access, and that access can be audited and revoked in real time. Ethical walls are not named as such.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Section 3 of the master services agreement commits Lexbe to notify the customer or an account administrator promptly when a third party seeks customer data by subpoena or investigative demand. Lexbe hands the defense of the request to the customer and cooperates on the response. If legal process forces Lexbe staff to do work on a customer's matter, section 18 bills the customer for it. Otherwise data is disclosed only on the customer's instruction or under law or a valid order. No transparency report is published.
No customer agreement, data processing agreement or transparency report is published, so no commitment to notify a customer of a government or law enforcement request for its data can be read.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Lexbe's AI works on the evidence a customer uploads to a case, not on a body of law, so no legal content source or license is involved. CoPilot and Pilot draw only on the documents in the matter, and AutoPilot codes them one at a time.
aiR draws on the customer's own collected documents rather than a vendor supplied library of law, so no legal content source, license or update cycle applies.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
The platform reviews a party's own documents and does not retrieve case law, so no citator or subsequent history check applies. Its source links point to case documents, not to legal authority.
aiR works on a matter's collected documents rather than published case law, and claiR answers from that same data with direct citations to it. No treatment signal or later history check applies to legal authority.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
CoPilot and AutoPilot return a confidence rating from 1 to 10 with each responsiveness or privilege call, along with a rationale, to speed quality control. Pilot limits answers to the text sent to the model and gives incomplete answers to whole case list requests. No path is described for the product declining to answer when the documents do not support one.
aiR Review explains and cites each call, and aiR for Privilege ranks likely privileged documents by its prediction. No path is described for declining a call when a document does not support one, and no confidence threshold is shown to the user.
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 Lexbe. Lexbe's AI summarizes, codes and answers questions about a party's own discovery documents rather than drafting filings.
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 Relativity or aiR. aiR works on a matter's own documents and cites the passages behind each call rather than citing case law.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Lexbe engages with no ethics opinion or bar guidance. Its agreement limits use to licensed attorneys or customers who have retained one, and its marketing stresses attorney control of AI output, without naming ABA Formal Opinion 512 or any state bar opinion.
No named ethics opinion, such as ABA Formal Opinion 512, or state bar guidance is engaged. The AI Principles commit Relativity to openness about its AI so that customers can defend their own processes.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
Lexbe claims AutoPilot can cut first level review time by up to 70 percent. Its modeled 100,000 document review falls from about 2,000 reviewer hours at a $60 blended hourly rate to roughly 600, at an estimated $48,500 in review and platform cost against $120,000. Nothing addresses how AI assisted review should appear on a client's bill. Lexbe also says its pricing eases billing administration with clients, and it customizes invoices for each insurance carrier in a matter with claim numbers and cost breakdowns.
In customer stories, JND reports cutting a corporate client's costs by nearly 60%, and Microsoft projects $1.6 million a year. The Redgrave LLP study recorded about 18 attorney hours against 1,123 for the same review. No per matter record of AI assisted work exists for billing, and nothing addresses how a firm bills or discloses that work to clients.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
The master services agreement names OpenAI, Anthropic and Amazon Web Services as the providers behind Lexbe's AI services, along with the Amazon services used for transcription, translation and image recognition. Release notes name the language models in use. No full subprocessor list or client facing disclosure pack is offered, and Standard Contractual Clauses are available on request.
ISO 27001 and 27018 certifications, SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 reports and the CAIQ are available through a request route, and the models and processing locations behind aiR are published. No subprocessor list, data processing agreement or client notice pack is published.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
Parts of a disclosure record exist. AutoPilot gives a rationale and confidence rating for every document, and CoPilot and Pilot link answers to their source documents. Administrators can export a log of who viewed or downloaded each document. Before a production runs, a validation step flags partial email families, missing redactions and privilege coding across email families, and a privilege log can be exported afterward. No document level export ties a model, its sources and human verification together.
Every aiR Review call explains why the document matters and cites the passages behind it, and aiR for Privilege drafts privilege log descriptions. Relativity names the models aiR uses and the processing location for each region. No single export per document brings together the model used, the passages relied on and the human review.
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.
- Primary Law Corpus Provenance
- Good Law Verification
- Bar Guidance Alignment
Which one fits
Choose Lexbe if
- Your team works on Macs. Lexbe runs in any modern browser on Windows, Mac or a mobile device with nothing to install.
- The case turns on foreign language documents. Lexbe translates whole cases across 75 languages, and CoPilot translates inline while a reviewer reads.
- You want a case overview on day one. Pilot produces a narrative summary, an event timeline, an entity index and an issues matrix, each linked to source documents.
Choose Relativity if
- Your matters include government work. Relativity aiR holds FedRAMP Moderate authorization for aiR Government, along with SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 and 27018.
- Reviewers need to defend each AI call. Every aiR analysis carries citations and a rationale, and privilege determinations flow into production decisions.
- You collect from AI assistants and chat tools. Relativity aiR collects from Claude Enterprise, ChatGPT Enterprise, Gemini, Microsoft 365, Google Workspace and Slack.
In summary
Lexbe
Lexbe runs its eDiscovery platform on Amazon Web Services for law firms, corporate legal departments and managed review providers, processing more than one million documents an hour. Generative AI comes from OpenAI and Anthropic models across three tools, with CoPilot and Pilot included in hosting plans and AutoPilot sold as a paid review service. According to the AI Legal Index, Lexbe names no security certification, and its agreement limits use to licensed attorneys or customers who have retained one.
Relativity
Relativity makes Relativity aiR, formerly RelativityOne, a cloud eDiscovery and legal data platform used by 193 of the Am Law 200 and by legal professionals in more than 30 countries. Its aiR tools code documents with citations and rationale, and claiR, in advanced access, answers questions across a firm's legal data. According to the AI Legal Index, Relativity aiR holds SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 reports and ISO 27001 and 27018 certification, with FedRAMP Moderate covering aiR Government.
Questions buyers ask
Is Lexbe a cheaper alternative to Relativity?
Lexbe positions itself that way. It prices by the gigabyte hosted, charges no user or case fees and includes CoPilot and Pilot in every plan, though it publishes no rate to compare against. 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 Lexbe AutoPilot compare with Relativity aiR for Review?
Each codes documents with a written rationale for every call. AutoPilot adds a confidence rating from 1 to 10 and is set up by Lexbe's professional services team, while aiR for Review attaches citations to each decision. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
Which carries more security certifications, Lexbe or Relativity?
Relativity aiR holds SOC 2 Type II and SOC 3 reports, ISO 27001:2022 and 27018 certification and HIPAA compliance. Lexbe names no certification and describes AES-256 encryption and access controls on AWS. 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 a mid sized firm, Lexbe or Relativity aiR?
Lexbe is designed for mid sized firms that run discovery themselves, with free weekly training and unlimited users. Relativity aiR is used by 193 of the Am Law 200 and adds claiR, in advanced access, for questions across a firm's legal data. From the AI Legal Index, based on each vendor's own published materials as of October 13, 2026. No vendor pays for placement.
How much data can Lexbe and Relativity aiR process?
Relativity aiR averages more than 2.5 TB processed a day, with some customers reaching 15 TB a day. Lexbe says its engine handles more than one million documents an hour on over 10,000 processors. 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.
Lexbe Inc. is based in Austin, Texas. Lexbe's own platform FAQ compares it with Relativity on pricing and cloud history. Neither vendor reviewed this page.