K
Ketch
Ketch is a data privacy management platform for privacy, legal and security teams, covering consent management, data subject request automation, data mapping, privacy risk assessments, preference and identity management and AI governance. A server side permission store carries a person's consent and preferences into every connected system. Its AI layer, the Ketch Agent Network, connects to a customer's systems and contracts, classifies data fields by sensitivity and purpose, and reads data processing agreements and subprocessor lists to extract what each vendor may do with data, citing the clause.
It flags where a contract and a system configuration disagree and keeps the processing record current, and a regulations hub summarizes laws and enforcement actions by where a customer operates. Ketch Kloud, Inc. is a Delaware corporation based in San Francisco, with a free tier and paid plans whose Pro tier adds single tenant data residency. Its published agreement bars training on customer data, gives prior notice of compelled disclosure and commits to challenge unlawful government requests and to delete data thirty days after termination. It holds ISO 27001 and SOC 2 Type II and runs on Amazon Web Services in a multi tenant environment.
Ketch, head to head
Side by side on the same 15 capability axes and 12 legal signals: where the two part company, and what neither one publishes.
Alternatives to Ketch
Vendors in the same categories as Ketch whose graded profiles look most alike, with a line on what each product does.
Similar is not the same, so check that each one does the job you need. No vendor pays for placement.
- RRegologyRegology is an AI regulatory intelligence platform for compliance, legal and risk teams, now sold as Bloomberg Regology.
- BBigIDBigID is a New York company whose platform discovers and classifies data across cloud, SaaS, on premises, hybrid, structured, unstructured and AI connected sources.
- BBleeBlee is an AI marketing compliance platform from Blee, Inc. of New York, sold to legal, compliance and risk teams that review marketing, product and sales content, with marketing and…
- CCredo AICredo AI, based in Los Altos, California, sells an AI governance platform that inventories the AI an organization runs and checks it against regulatory obligations.
- CCUBECUBE is a regulatory intelligence company for financial institutions and other regulated businesses, based in London.
- EEthycaEthyca is a data governance and privacy engineering platform for enterprises.
Ordered by how closely the graded profiles match across the 15 capability axes, inside the same categories. See how each axis is graded in the methodology.
Capability grades
All 15 axes, graded from public sources on the date shown. 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.
The AI drives a core capability, and the privacy platform underneath would still work without it. The Ketch Agent Network is described as the orchestration layer powering every product, with agents dispatched for discovery, risk, consent configuration, documentation and reporting, reading contracts and classifying data fields; an AI Governance module is sold alongside. Remove the models and consent capture and enforcement, the permission store, data subject request intake and fulfillment, identity resolution and the regulations hub remain, which is a working privacy platform.
The master services agreement defines AI Technology as one component of the Services rather than the Services themselves. The May 2026 Agent Network release is the point at which the AI layer became central to the marketing; the structure is a privacy platform with a model layer.
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.
Answers are tied to sources, and no accuracy figure is published. The agent network page says the agent answers from what it knows about the customer's systems, configurations and processing activities, that every answer comes with a source, and that what a vendor may do with data is extracted from the legal text and cited to the clause. The regulations hub describes laws, enforcement actions and settlement terms summarized and mapped to where the customer operates.
Master services agreement section 7.3 says outputs may be inaccurate, incomplete or inappropriate and must be reviewed and validated before use. No accuracy measurement, test set or evaluation is published. The product cites the customer's own contracts and configurations, and the regulatory content does not name its sources.
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 agreement makes the customer the reviewer, and the product offers real review surfaces, but no full control structure is published. Terms section 7.3 makes the customer responsible for reviewing and validating AI outputs before relying on them. The agent network page says the agent flags where a contract's permissions and a system's configuration disagree rather than acting on the mismatch, and that every answer carries a source for review.
Data subject request automation keeps an auditable trail for every request, and the Permission Vault keeps consent decisions as auditable evidence. Not published: thresholds for when an agent acts alone, which agent actions run without approval, and any route back after a wrong output beyond the customer's own correction.
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.
Testimonials carry no attribution, and the only figure is aggregate scale. The home page carries quotes from legal, marketing and privacy operations teams, including that Ketch is software lawyers can use, without a named person or organization, and the figure of 67.2 billion consent transactions a month used across the site is a scale claim rather than a deployment outcome. A Customers page and customer stories are linked in the navigation.
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.
Most commitments are in the published agreement, and privilege is not addressed. Master services agreement section 7.2 says Ketch will not, and will not let any third party, use customer data to train AI or machine learning models, with Feedback and Usage Data carved out for improving its AI Technology. The DPA states a multi tenant environment, Ketch's home page lists role based access, SSO and SCIM, and the Pro plan adds single tenant data residency.
DPA Schedule 3 keeps data for the life of the contract plus thirty days, then deletes or anonymizes it automatically, and DPA section 9 gives destruction or return on written request. Section 7.2 binds third party model providers on training, and the DPA commits subprocessors to the government access protections of the standard contractual clauses. The DPA says a current subprocessor list with countries is published at a stated URL. Nothing addresses privilege or work product.
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.
Ketch takes a clear position on advice versus tooling, but says little about a supervising lawyer's duties and names no jurisdiction limits. Master services agreement section 3.4 states that the services, documentation and any communication from Ketch are not intended and should not be taken as legal advice, and section 9.2 that outputs are not to be relied on as a substitute for professional advice; section 7.3 requires the customer to validate AI outputs for accuracy, legality and compliance and bars representing them as made by a person.
The buyer is stated as privacy, legal and security teams. Nothing addresses how the product supports a supervising lawyer's duties beyond the review obligation, and no jurisdiction limit is named beyond the export control bar in section 3.3.
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.
A governance commitment is made without a published mechanism, testing regime or accountable owner. Master services agreement section 7.1 states that Ketch designs and operates its AI Technology with commercially reasonable measures consistent with industry practice and maintains policies and processes reasonably designed to assess and mitigate material risks, which is a contractual undertaking to have a governance process rather than a description of one.
Ketch also sells an AI Governance product, which governs the customer's AI rather than describing Ketch's own. No framework, ISO 42001 or equivalent, description of testing before release or statement about 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.
Retention, deletion, access control, subprocessors and incident practice are all published and specific, in the DPA of 7 May 2026 and its Schedule 3. Customer data is kept for the life of the contract and thirty days, then deleted or permanently anonymized by an automated process; server logs are kept twelve months, and free services carry no retention obligation. DPA section 9 gives destruction or return on written request, and terms section 12.5 fixes the thirty day window.
Access control covers formal provisioning and removal, regular access reviews, staff confidentiality agreements and annual training, TLS 1.2 and 1.3 in transit, SSE-S3 encryption at rest and a named data protection officer. DPA section 5.2 publishes a current subprocessor list with countries at a stated URL, with notice of additions by subscription and a thirty day objection right. DPA section 7 commits to incident notice without undue delay, with cause and remediation.
Schedule 3 states a six hour recovery point and twenty four hour recovery time objective, annual penetration testing and annual restoration tests.
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.
What Ketch stands behind is published and specific, including that it stands behind nothing on wrong output. Master services agreement section 10.1 gives an IP infringement indemnity with the exclusions in 10.2 and the remedies in 10.3, ending in termination with a pro rata refund; section 11.1 caps each party's aggregate liability at fees paid in the preceding twelve months and 11.2 excludes indirect loss including loss of data; section 9.1 warrants material conformity to documentation with the exclusive remedies in 12.3 and 12.4; section 7.3 places all responsibility for AI outputs on the customer and 9.2 disclaims warranties of accuracy and reliability; section 13 removes indemnity, warranty and, where enforceable, all liability for free services, with a cap of one thousand dollars otherwise. No insurance is stated, and order forms and the DPA prevail over the MSA on conflict.
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.
Real integrations, documented, with depth described for some. The agent network page names Braze and Snowflake among hundreds of SaaS connections and says what the connection does: it classifies every field by sensitivity, category and purpose and keeps the inventory current as the stack changes. Public documentation is published at docs.ketch.com, and an Integrations page is linked in the navigation. The connections run to data systems, CRMs and marketing platforms, not to document, matter or electronic billing systems. For a privacy platform sold to an in house team, those data systems are the relevant estate.
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 tenancy model is stated clearly, and the residency detail is partial. DPA section 6.2.2 says Ketch runs a multi tenant cloud environment. Schedule 3 says the infrastructure runs on Amazon Web Services across multiple availability zones, with backups in a separate geographic region, and Ketch's home page says the Pro plan adds single tenant data residency. No region is listed, and nothing states where model processing happens as distinct from storage.
The transfer provisions in DPA section 12 assume transfers from Europe to the United States under standard contractual clauses or the Data Privacy Framework.
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.
Certification is stated, kept up under the contract and evidenced on request, and no report is available without asking. DPA section 6.2.1 says Ketch holds ISO 27001 certification and SSAE 18 SOC 2 Type II reports for the Services and will maintain them for the term, with reports available on written request under confidentiality. Schedule 3 adds ISO 27001:2022, annual independent assessment and annual penetration testing, and the home page adds ISO 27701. A trust center exists at trust.ketch.com. No auditor or coverage period is stated.
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.
Ketch refers to AI Technology and underlying models without naming what sits underneath. The master services agreement defines AI Technology generically, section 7.4 refers to Ketch's underlying models and algorithms, and the privacy policy lists AI and machine learning services as a category of service provider. No model or model provider is named in the agreement, the DPA or the privacy policy. DPA section 5.2 says a current subprocessor list with identities and countries is published at ketch.com/subprocessors, with notice of additions by subscription.
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.
The unit and structure are stated in the agreement without a figure. Master services agreement section 5.2 bases fees on the plan and usage limits in the order form, measured monthly, with defined units of Unique Identities and Contacts and automatic movement to the next plan on overage. Section 5.1 gives sixty days' notice of renewal price changes. Section 12.2 renews for the longer of the initial term or twelve months, with thirty days' notice of nonrenewal, and section 13 governs a free tier, Ketch Free, offered without warranty. Ketch's home page names a Pro tier with single tenant residency, and a pricing page is linked in the navigation.
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.
Segment and coverage are described with substance; the boundaries are left open. Buyers are stated as privacy operations, legal, security and marketing teams, with industry solutions for retail and ecommerce, technology, financial services, healthcare, communications and media, automotive, travel and hospitality, and education, and regulatory coverage stated as GDPR, CCPA and CPRA, emerging US state laws through a US Privacy Law Atlas, and privacy and AI laws generally.
What is not stated is where the product stops: no jurisdiction, regulation or industry is named as unsupported, and no law firm use is described.
3 public documents
The public pages on file for Ketch, with the recorded signals each one supports and the date it was last read. Open any of them and check the reading against the record.
-
ketch.com/data-processing-addendum4 signals
Prompt and Output Retention, Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation, Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice and 1 more
Read Sep 6, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 6, 2026
-
ketch.com/terms-of-service1 signal
Client Data in Training
Read Sep 6, 2026
No published figure
- There is a free version you can start with, but it comes with almost no promises.
- Paid plans charge by how many people's data you handle each month, in tiers.
- If you go over your tier, they can move you up to the next one and charge more.
- The agreement does not say what the paid tiers cost.
- Plans renew for a year at a time unless you say no 30 days before.
Structure is published in the master services agreement without a figure. Section 5.2 bases fees on the plan and usage limits in the order form, measured monthly against defined units: Unique Identities (monthly unique identities across covered digital properties) and Contacts (unique email addresses stored). Overage moves the customer to the next plan after thirty days' notice, with no reduction during the term. Section 5.1 gives sixty days' notice of renewal price changes and renews promotional pricing at list.
Section 12.2 renews for the longer of the initial term or twelve months, with thirty days' notice of nonrenewal. Section 13 governs Ketch Free, a free tier without service levels, DPA obligations, indemnity or, where enforceable, liability. Ketch's home page names a Pro tier adding single tenant residency and migration support, and a pricing page is published at ketch.com/pricing. The agreement states no figure, which does not mean the paid product is free.
Legal Signals
What each signal meansA signal records what public sources say on the date shown. It is not a grade and it is not a recommendation. Where a signal reads Not addressed, it means the index did not locate the material in public sources on that date, which is a statement about disclosure rather than about the product.
Client Data in Training
Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?
The published terms prohibit training on customer content. Not a policy page, the agreement.
The commitment is in the agreement. Master services agreement section 7.2 of 7 May 2026 provides that Ketch will not, and will not permit any third party to, use any customer data to train any artificial intelligence or machine learning model. The clause carves out Feedback, which it illustrates as thumbs up or thumbs down labeling of AI suggestions, and Usage Data, defined in section 6.3 as log data and metadata, both of which Ketch may use to train and improve its AI Technology; section 6.5 separately permits aggregated deidentified data for reports. Customer data is defined to include outputs produced by the services.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
A specific retention period is published and the customer cannot change it.
A specific period is published and the customer cannot change it during the term. DPA Schedule 3 states that customer data, which the agreement defines to include outputs, is retained for the life of the contract and thirty days thereafter, after which an automated process deletes or permanently anonymizes it except for what law requires to be kept; terms section 12.5 repeats the thirty day window. DPA section 9 gives destruction or return on written request after the services end, and server logs are retained twelve months.
Nothing states a shorter or configurable window for prompts to the agents during the term, and free services carry no retention obligation at all.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.
The product keeps its own permission model and describes it. DPA section 6.2.2 states that Ketch operates a multi tenant cloud environment, Ketch's home page lists role based access control, SSO and SCIM as standard, and the Pro plan adds single tenant data residency; DPA Schedule 3 describes a formal access provisioning lifecycle with regular access reviews. That is separation at the tenant level with documented access control; nothing describes how the agents' retrieval respects role permissions within a tenant.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
Terms commit to notice where lawfully permitted. No transparency report located.
The published agreement commits to notice and to challenging unlawful requests. Master services agreement section 8.3 requires prior notice of any compelled disclosure of confidential information, where legally permitted, with help to contest it. DPA section 8.1 requires prompt notice of any legally binding request for access by a public authority, with a summary of its nature. Where notice is prohibited, Ketch must seek a waiver; it must challenge any request it concludes is unlawful, seek interim measures, disclose the minimum permitted, and give notice of any direct access by a public authority.
Schedule 1 section 1.12 routes notice to the customer rather than the data subject. 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?
Coverage is described by jurisdiction with no identification of the underlying corpus.
Coverage is described by jurisdiction without identifying the underlying sources. The regulations hub and the US Privacy Law Atlas describe laws, enforcement actions and settlement terms synthesized and mapped to where a customer operates, covering GDPR, CCPA, CPRA and US state laws, and the agents draw on the customer's own contracts and configurations with citations to the clause. Nothing states where the regulatory text is sourced, under what license, or how often it is refreshed beyond the claim that it is synthesized as it lands.
Good Law Verification
Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?
No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.
No public material addresses whether authority is checked for later history, and the product cites no case law: its regulatory content is statutes, regulations and enforcement actions, and its agents cite the customer's own contracts. The product has no citator function.
Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior
What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?
No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.
Nothing published describes what the agents do when they cannot ground an answer. The agent network page states that every answer carries a source and that the agent flags where a contract's permissions and a system's configuration disagree, which is a mismatch alert rather than an abstention path, and terms section 7.3 places validation on the customer. Nothing describes a confidence signal or what happens when there is no answer.
Fabricated Citation Record
Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?
No court order, opinion or disciplinary record addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations produced by this product has been located as of the date shown. This is a statement about the public record on that one subject, not a finding about the product, and this signal is not a litigation history.
The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin records no court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Ketch or Ketch Kloud, Inc., and the court findings it does record involve general purpose chatbots, none of them this product. A privacy platform that cites no case law carries remote exposure here.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.
No public material engages with bar or ethics guidance. The master services agreement disclaims legal advice and requires human validation of AI outputs, and the regulations hub engages extensively with privacy statutes and enforcement, but the terms, the home page and the regulations hub name no ethics opinion, bar rule or professional responsibility framework.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The product does not touch a fee between a lawyer and a client. It operates before an engagement exists, or it is bought by a team that bills no client for the work. Savings claims aimed at the buyer’s own cost are recorded in the summary and do not make the row a savings claim, because no client bill is in the loop.
The buyer is an in house privacy, legal or security function that bills no client, so the product sits outside a fee relationship between lawyer and client. The vendor's own charge is a tiered subscription on Unique Identities and Contacts per the master services agreement, and its published savings framing is operational: the processing record that took weeks is now maintained continuously. Nothing addresses how AI assisted work is recorded or disclosed on any bill, and no law firm is a named buyer segment.
Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness
Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?
A current subprocessor or model provider list is published.
A current subprocessor list is published. DPA section 5.2 says the list, with identities and countries, is kept at a stated URL with notice by subscription before any new subprocessor handles personal data, and section 5.3 gives a thirty day objection right. The DPA itself is published in full and drafted to be executed by reference.
Court Disclosure Support
If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?
No located public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification.
No public material addresses court disclosure or verification certification of AI assisted work. The platform keeps auditable trails for data subject requests and consent decisions and the agents cite sources for their answers, but those are records of privacy operations rather than a record for each document of the model used, sources retrieved and human verification, and the product produces no work product for a court.