Mary Technology vs Wexler AI: how they compare in 2026

Remove the models and nothing remains to sell. The product is a reading and extraction engine. It takes case files as they arrive, including poor scans and old formats, reads every page, and extracts each fact rather than storing documents as embeddings. Each fact is tagged with people, dates and events, linked to its source page and given a status of supported, contradicted or unconfirmed. The engine also surfaces contradictions, unexplained periods and material referenced elsewhere but missing from the production. There is no document management system, review platform or matter management layer underneath that would be licensed alone. Documents are uploaded or pulled from systems the firm already has, and Mary adds the structured factual record and everything built from it. The vendor's own architectural claim contrasts extraction of each fact, with a traceable link to source, with approaches based on compression.

The models are the whole product. Fact extraction across a document set, contradiction detection, chronology building and the Kim assistant all come from the models. The platform is positioned as reasoning across a million pages, not as a repository with analysis added on top. No document management, workflow or matter system sits underneath that would work without them. The company calls it a fact intelligence platform that analyzes every fact in every document to show what the evidence supports, and none of that could run without the models.

The verification design is documented in detail, and none of it is measured. Grounding works fact by fact rather than answer by answer. Every extracted fact traces to its source page, plain language questions return answers with one click citations to the exact facts and pages, and the original source can be opened against any entry. Each entry also carries a published status of supported, contradicted or unconfirmed, and competing accounts are kept separate rather than merged into one answer, with contradictions and unexplained periods left visible. Coverage is reported too: what was processed, what informed an entry, what was reviewed but unused and what remains unprocessed. That combination addresses hallucination by design. No accuracy figure, evaluation, test set or error rate is published. The nearest item is a preference study in which eight of nine litigators preferred Mary's output in a matter review at an unnamed global firm, undated and with no method, which measures preference rather than accuracy.

Grounding is documented and central to the product's claim. Answers are presented as sourced facts drawn only from the customer's own documents, and every fact traces to its source passage. An arbitration case study records the system explaining where in a document it found each date or event. What is missing is a measurement published by the vendor. The one accuracy figure on the site comes from an unnamed national firm, quoted in a testimonial. In its own testing the hallucination rate was less than 0.1 percent, and the tool was at least on a par with human review. No test set, method or named organization stands behind that figure. The vendor names no failure mode anywhere.

The control structure is published in full, and there is no autonomous mode. Proposed updates stay pending until a person approves them, stated as a product mechanism rather than a promise. The published workflow makes human review its own numbered stage: the team inspects sources, reviews contradictions and gaps, sets status and approves changes before anything becomes work product. What the system does alone is stated: reading every page and structuring people, dates, events and facts. Its limit is stated plainly. Mary does not decide the case; it shows the record, including what is missing and what does not add up, so the lawyer can, and legal judgment stays with the lawyer. The review surfaces are the product's core, since every entry can be opened against its source and its status set by hand. Clause 11(d) of the agreement requires all outputs to be reviewed and approved by a qualified legal professional before any action is taken. Nothing describes what happens when an entry is wrong, or how a firm would detect a document set that has been misread throughout.

Oversight is never described as a structure, though the design gives a reviewer tools to check the output. Confidence scores and source links on each answer give a reviewer something to test. A testimonial describes the system raising follow up questions of the kind a reviewer would expect from a trainee. Nothing published says what the system does unattended and what a lawyer approves. No threshold is given at which it defers or stops, no review workflow is described, and nothing commits to a supervising lawyer working alongside it. With no terms published, there is no contractual review duty either.

The published figures are counts rather than outcomes: more than four thousand lawyers and more than one hundred and fifty firms, neither dated nor tied to any organization. One comparative claim comes closer: eight of nine litigators preferred Mary's output in a matter review at a global law firm. The firm is unnamed, and there is no date, matter description or method for assessing preference. Testimonials on the self serve site carry no name, role or firm, including one saying work that took half a day to a full day now takes under fifteen minutes. No customer is named, and no dated deployment or measured outcome is published. A customer stories page sits in the navigation. Trade press names Australian firms as customers, but that is third party material.

Deployment evidence is real, and the figures attach to unnamed firms. Four firms appear as named customers, among them Clifford Chance, Goodwin and Burges Salmon, with attributed quotes from Claire Freeman, a partner at Clifford Chance, and Tom Whittaker, a legal director at Burges Salmon. Lord Wilson of Culworth also endorses the product. The insights journal dates two relationships: Goodwin deepened its partnership on 3 June 2026, and Burges Salmon extended its partnership across the firm on 11 May 2026. The figures are specific. One AmLaw 100 matter covered more than 250,000 pages with a 90 percent average time saving, and 100 percent of users said they would adopt the tool. At a global firm, inconsistencies the system identified were relied on at an international arbitration hearing. No figure is tied to a named firm.

Separation is published at the level this buyer needs, and privilege is not addressed. The security commitment is specific and stated on the product page. Customer data is isolated by matter, with separate access and data boundaries for each, encrypted in transit and at rest, with access following the firm's own permissions and single sign on. Documents, matter content, prompts and outputs are never used to train AI models. Isolation by matter is what a litigation practice with screened matters needs. Clause 19 of the terms carries part of this contractually, describing tenanted AI services under which confidential client information is not accessible for model training or to unauthorized personnel. Three gaps remain. No privilege or work product treatment appears, on a product built to hold the factual record of contested matters. No model provider is named, so nothing addresses what any third party retains. And the isolation claim has no supporting documentation, since the security page defers detail to a trust center.

Confidentiality is asserted in general terms, and no commitment can be read in advance. The security page speaks of a deep commitment to best in class security and a heavy emphasis on data protection, secure operations and cloud security, which is assertion rather than commitment. Nothing published addresses training on customer documents, retention or deletion of matter material, separation between customers or matters, or what a model provider may retain. Privilege and work product go unmentioned, on a product built to take in the entire evidential record of a dispute. The privacy policy does not reach customer documents, and no agreement is published.

A real published position, stated in the agreement and repeated across the site. Clause 11(d) says the software helps with legal tasks but is no substitute for professional legal advice, analysis or judgment. All outputs and recommendations must be reviewed and approved by a qualified legal professional before any action is taken or decision made, and the vendor disclaims liability for actions taken without legal review. It also declines to guarantee the accuracy, completeness or suitability of output for any purpose. Every page carries the same idea: lawyers remain responsible, and legal AI should make its work easy to check before they sign. The product material repeats that Mary does not decide the case and that legal judgment stays with the lawyer. That is a coherent account of where the product stops. The professional layer is absent: no bar association, rule of professional conduct or ethics opinion is named, no jurisdiction is identified, and nothing addresses a firm's supervision or competence duties.

Wexler's output is relied on in filings and at hearings. No statement says what the output is and is not, no disclaimer separates analysis from advice, and no competence or supervision language appears. No jurisdiction limit is stated, though the product is sold in the United Kingdom and the United States. The site publishes no terms of service, customer agreement or acceptable use policy. The marketing describes the output as testable at trial.

No governance position is published. There is no responsible AI page, principles statement, accountable owner for model behavior, evaluation regime before release, management system or certification such as ISO 42001, and nothing addresses uneven output. The vendor publishes an editorial position on verification: that verification in legal AI is a design problem, and that legal work should be easy to check before a lawyer signs. That position is held across the product, but it is a design philosophy rather than a governance framework, and it names no reviewer, criteria or results. A system that assigns each fact a status of supported, contradicted or unconfirmed makes a judgment on every entry. Nothing published says how that classifier was evaluated or how it behaves across document types, jurisdictions or the poor scans the product advertises handling.

No governance position is published for a system whose output shapes what a party argues the evidence shows. There is no responsible AI statement, governance framework or named owner. Nothing describes testing or evaluation before release, no results are published, and nothing addresses bias or uneven performance across document types, languages or kinds of matter. The confidence score is a product feature rather than a governance mechanism, and the information security certifications do not reach these questions.

Access and testing are addressed; retention, deletion and suppliers are not. Published: client data encrypted throughout its lifecycle, annual penetration tests and continuous vulnerability assessments, background checks and access reviews for staff, mobile device management, a cybersecurity training program, data boundaries at matter level, and access governed by the firm's own permissions with single sign on. Most of the rest is missing. No retention period is stated for documents, extracted facts, prompts or outputs, only that data is kept as long as necessary and securely purged in line with best practices. No deletion or return of data commitment for customer material is published. No subprocessor list exists; the only third parties named are Stripe for payments and Meta among advertising networks, neither of which touches matter content. Clause 5 of the terms says the privacy policy covers the vendor's obligations on security breaches, but the privacy policy, last updated 22 August 2026, has no breach notification provision.

A privacy policy for the website covers the company, not the evidence customers upload. It names contact details, IP address, browser and device data and usage data. None of it reaches uploaded evidence, extracted facts or the assistant's outputs. Matter material gets no deletion or retention terms, and no breach notification practice appears. The one specific stewardship practice published is a responsible disclosure program: security reports get a response within two business days, good faith researchers get a safe harbor, and credit is given on resolution.

The allocation of loss is published, readable before signing, and leaves almost nothing behind it. Clause 12(a) limits total liability, however arising and under any theory, to resupplying the services, a remedy of performing again with no monetary ceiling behind it rather than a capped one. Clause 12(b) excludes direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential and exemplary damages alike. Clause 11(c) provides everything as is and as available without warranty of any kind, with a long list of losses disclaimed, including loss of data and unauthorized access to records. Clause 14 runs the indemnity one way from the user, covering their content and any use of the service. There is no indemnity from the vendor, no warranty on output, no service level commitment and no insurance position. One real floor exists: clause 11(a) preserves the guarantees of the Australian Consumer Law that cannot be excluded, a real statutory backstop for an Australian buyer that does not reach a US litigation customer at all.

Nothing is published on who bears the loss when the system is wrong. The site carries no terms of service, master subscription agreement, customer agreement or order form template. Its only legal link, in the footer, is a website privacy policy, and the navigation has no legal section. No indemnity, liability cap, warranty or insurance position appears on any page, so the allocation of loss cannot be read before signing. The home page, security page, privacy policy, navigation and footer were searched.

Integration is described by category throughout and no counterparty is named anywhere. The product material states that a team can upload or connect the documents it already has, shows a document system and a supported AI tool feeding the same factual record, and offers to let approved AI tools and drafting workflows build from that record. The privacy policy confirms the mechanism, recording that data is collected from third party applications connected to the platform, such as document management systems, when authorized by the user, and shared back with those integration partners. That is a real and reciprocal connection, and it is described only as a class. No document management system, review platform, matter management system or ediscovery tool is named, no API or developer documentation is published, and nothing states what data moves, in which direction or on what trigger. For a product whose value proposition is being the single factual record several tools build from, the absence of a named counterparty is the most visible gap.

The pages checked show no integration with practice systems. No document management system, eDiscovery platform, review tool, transcript system or matter management product is named, and neither the navigation nor the footer leads to an integrations page or developer documentation. Single sign on, listed with the security features, is authentication rather than integration. The workflow described is to upload a document set and question it, with nothing on how documents arrive from an existing review platform.

The isolation model is stated precisely, and the region is not stated at all. Customer data is described as isolated by matter, with separate access and data boundaries for each, and clause 19 of the terms says the platform runs on tenanted AI services under which confidential client information is not accessible to unauthorized personnel. Boundaries at matter level are finer than separation by tenant and imply separation between customers. No region is named for storage or processing, no cloud provider is identified, and no residency commitment appears in the terms, the privacy policy or the security page. That is a live question for a product run through Australian and United States entities, with an application host on a country specific subdomain and a trust center on an Australian one. No on premises or self hosted option is mentioned.

Residency is offered as a real choice, and processing is not addressed. The home page and security page both say data is stored in the UK, the US or elsewhere on request, so the location is the customer's choice rather than fixed. Private cloud deployment is offered for organizations that need it, a tenancy option beyond the default. Nothing says where processing or model inference happens as distinct from storage. No regions are listed beyond the two named, and nothing explains how controls, isolation or price differ between the standard and private cloud arrangements.

A real trust portal and a claim of recognized controls, with no standard named in text. The security page says the program is built around internationally recognized controls and independently tested safeguards, and links to a trust center on a third party compliance platform. No standard or assessor is named in the page text: no SOC 2 of either type, ISO certification, examination period, scope statement, certificate or report summary appears. Annual penetration testing is asserted without naming the testing firm or publishing results. Nothing published says whether the trust center releases documents on an email address or requires a sales conversation.

Two certifications are claimed, and the evidence behind them is not public. ISO 27001 certification and SOC 2 Type II accreditation appear on the home page and again on a security page, alongside single sign on and regular penetration testing. No certifying body, auditor, certificate number, scope, observation period or report date is published, so neither claim can be checked against a register without contacting Wexler. A trust center at trust.wexler.ai, hosted on Drata, is linked from the security page and described as supporting all customers. It showed only a loading frame with no content when checked, so what it holds and who can open it are not established. Current as of 4 September 2026.

The vendor describes its AI architecture and identifies nothing underneath it. The terms speak of a platform powered by industry leading AI processes and of tenanted AI services, and the product material contrasts extraction of each fact, linked to source, with systems that store documents as embeddings in vector databases. No model, version, provider or hosting arrangement is named, and no commitment to notify customers of changes is published. The only third parties named are Stripe as payment processor and Meta among advertising networks, neither of which processes matter content. The question matters here because the material is the whole factual record of contested litigation, including privileged work product. The tenanted AI services claim in clause 19 cannot be traced to a named provider.

Which models process a customer's documents is not disclosed. No model is named, no model provider is named, and no subprocessor list exists. No location is given for inference as distinct from storage, and nothing commits to notifying customers of a change. The assistant carries a product name, Kim, which identifies the interface rather than what sits underneath it. The security page mentions cloud security, and the residency statement says where data rests, but neither says whose models touch it.

No pricing information is published at any level, including the unit of charge. The navigation carries only security, resources and company, and every route on the site is a demo request. The terms describe payment without a charging model. Clause 7 requires a subscription and a fee for a subscription period, clause 8 lets the vendor vary the fee at any time with effect from the end of the current subscription, and clause 9 offers refunds only under the Australian Consumer Law or at the manager's absolute discretion. Nothing says whether the subscription is charged per user, matter, document or firm, and no rate, band, tier, term length or implementation cost appears. A self serve entry point is advertised as free to start, with nothing published about what it includes or what the paid tier costs.

No pricing is published at any level, including the unit of charge. There is no pricing page in the navigation or footer, no tier names and no feature split. Nothing says whether charging is per user, per matter, per page or per document, and there is no free trial or self serve route. Every call to action leads to a demo booking or a contact form asking for name, email, company, title and team size.

Commercial litigation is framed as rebuilding the sequence across contracts, emails, board materials, witness accounts and the production. Family law is framed as tracing finances, communications and parenting events across disclosures, bank statements, messages and filings. Personal injury is framed as rebuilding treatment, symptoms, diagnoses, work capacity and prior history across the medical file. In house disputes and investigations are framed as keeping one reviewable record across investigations, business teams, outside counsel and changing tools. Each names the material that practice generates. Partners, associates and litigation support are named as working from the same record. No jurisdiction is stated, no firm size band is given, nothing says which matter types or document sets the product handles poorly, and supported languages are not addressed.

The buyer is consistently disputes and investigations teams working on complex disputes, and the named customers and case studies are law firms, including one in the AmLaw 100. The roles quoted show the product used for early case assessment, international arbitration and cyber work. No firm size floor or ceiling is stated, and in house and government use are not addressed. No jurisdiction of substantive coverage is named despite offices in London and New York, and nothing says which matter or document types the product does not handle.