M
Merlin Search Technologies

Merlin Search Technologies makes Alchemy, an AI ediscovery and investigations platform covering processing, search, review and production. A legal team can ask questions in plain language across millions of documents and get sourced reports in minutes. Five AI engines combine keyword, AI enhanced and semantic search with analysis and answering models, and ReviewPartner applies AI reviewers to large document reviews. The company also sells AI services delivered overnight, including medical record analysis, transcript analysis, document unitization, OCR and metadata summaries.

Since April 2026 it has used TransPerfect's Reef ECA as its processing engine. Each client runs in its own Amazon Web Services account with separate servers, databases and storage, and each matter has its own servers, URL and login. Joint defense teams can share a site while keeping their own work product private. Environments can sit in any AWS region, in a client's own AWS account or in a FedRAMP environment. Pricing is by the hour, with a lower rate when a site is switched off.

The company was founded in 2019 in Denver by John Tredennick, founder of Catalyst. It completed a SOC 2 Type II audit in November 2025 and publishes a privacy policy and GDPR disclosure but no customer agreement.

Compared with

Merlin Search Technologies, 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.

Build your own comparison

Alternatives

Alternatives to Merlin Search Technologies

Vendors in the same categories as Merlin Search Technologies 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.

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.

BB on AI CentralityThe models are the engine of a core capability, layered on a product that would still function without them as a document or workflow system.

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 models are the engine of a core capability layered on a product that would still function without them. Alchemy's answering and analysis engines and ReviewPartner's AI reviewers sit on a full ediscovery platform with keyword and algorithmic search, review, tagging, production and multi-party workspaces that the company has sold since 2019 under the Sherlock and DiscoveryPartner names; the vendor's own framing is three engines to find and two to analyze and answer. Remove the answering models and a search-and-review platform remains.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureGrounding is real and documented, with linked primary sources and a described retrieval method, short of published accuracy figures an outsider can test.

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.

Grounding is real and documented with sourced outputs, short of a testable accuracy figure on the surfaces read. The home page states that questions return comprehensive, sourced answers and reports across the document set rather than search hits, the launch coverage describes a dual-window architecture separating analysis prompts from formatting prompts to keep formatting from interfering with document analysis, and the AI services page states that every service undergoes rigorous validation for accuracy, completeness and consistency at scale.

No accuracy figure, test set or evaluation is published in the material read; the founder's published book on generative AI for discovery was not opened. Questions about primary authority do not apply to a tool that reads the customer's own documents.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Autonomy and Oversight ModelA written commitment that the models work alongside a supervising lawyer, with real review surfaces, short of the full control structure: commonly the threshold at which the system stops or what happens after it is wrong.

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.

Review surfaces and constraints are published, short of the full control structure. Granular role-based access control exposes every function as an assignable permission, audit logs track each person's views, tags and searches, multi-party sites give user groups private tag sets and shared searches, and the platform delivers sourced reports a lawyer works from; ReviewPartner's AI reviewers are described as applying consistent judgment across files with validation.

What is not published is the threshold at which AI review decisions stand without human sampling, what executes without approval, or a stated route back after a wrong classification.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Operational and Outcome EvidenceReal deployment evidence with substance, short of full attribution or measurement: a named customer without figures, or figures without the named customer.

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.

A named customer without figures, and figures without a named customer. Dara Tarkowski, managing partner of Actuate Law, is quoted by name on the 2023 cloud utility pricing launch about adopting the pricing model, with no measured outcome; the home page states most clients save fifty to sixty percent on hosting costs, unattributed, and the TransPerfect partnership announcement states Reef ECA reduces document sets by over ninety percent on average, which is the partner's figure. US Legal Support and TransPerfect are named partners rather than customers. Nothing joins a named customer to a figure.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Privilege and Confidentiality PostureSubstantive published commitments on confidentiality and training use, short of the full picture: commonly silence on segregation between users or matters, or on what the underlying model provider may retain.

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.

Published commitments on separation and work product are substantial, short of a training statement and an agreement. Each client has its own AWS account with no shared database or infrastructure. Each matter has its own servers, database, storage, URL and login. Sites shared by several parties give each group private fields, tag sets and searches, which the security page describes as protecting each group's work product, so work product is addressed in writing.

Confidentiality controls include document lockdown with time limited authorization tokens, encryption in transit and at rest, and audit logging. Not found: any statement on training, since no customer agreement is published and the privacy policy was not opened; any retention or deletion commitment; and the identity of the models the platform runs.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA boilerplate disclaimer sits in the terms while the marketing describes the product in advice terms, or the intended audience is left ambiguous.

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.

No advice line or supervision statement is published. The product is sold to law firms, corporate legal departments and investigators and its AI reviewers are described as applying senior attorney-level judgment, which is a capability claim rather than a position on where the lawyer's responsibility sits; no surface read states that outputs are not legal advice or how the product supports a supervising lawyer's duties, and no customer agreement exists on the site to carry such a statement.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on AI Governance and Bias DisclosureResponsible AI principles are published without a mechanism, a testing regime, or anything a buyer could audit.

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.

Security governance is published and AI governance is not. The security page names a chief information security officer reporting to the chief executive and a Technology Governance Committee chaired jointly by the CISO and COO providing executive oversight, and the AI services page states rigorous validation of every service; security governance is a different subject from AI governance, and no responsible AI framework, ISO 42001 or equivalent, testing results or statement about uneven output across document types or languages is published.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on AI Safety and Data StewardshipSubstantive published policy covering most of the ground, short of the full set: commonly no named subprocessor list or no stated incident practice.

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.

Substantive published policy covering most of the ground, with retention and notification not located. Access control: granular role-based access control, document lockdown by time-limited token, audit logs of every view, tag and search, private subnets with no public IP addresses, TLS and AES-256 encryption. Hosting and sub-processors: Amazon Web Services named as the infrastructure provider, with per-client accounts and regions chosen by the client; AI model providers are not named.

Incident practice: the SOC 2 Type II scope covers monitoring and incident response, and the single-tenant design is described as limiting the blast radius of any incident to one environment; no customer notification commitment is published. Not located: a retention period or deletion commitment, since no customer agreement is published and the privacy policy was not opened.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on AI Liability and RecourseNothing published on who bears the loss when the system is wrong.

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.

No liability position is published. The site's page inventory, taken from the navigation and footer on 6 September 2026, carries a privacy policy, a GDPR disclosure and a contact page and no terms of service or customer agreement; the security page describes controls and invites contact for security requirements without any warranty, indemnity, cap or insurance statement. This is an absence on the vendor's surfaces rather than a retrieval limit.

Source: Operator Verified
CC on Practice Systems Integration DepthIntegrations are listed as logos or marked as coming, with no documentation an implementer could use.

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.

One integration is named with its function and no documentation an implementer could use was read. The April 2026 partnership release states that TransPerfect's Reef ECA is deployed as the processing engine across all Alchemy cloud instances, giving a unified workflow from ingestion through review; the security page offers hosting in a client's own AWS environment. No document management, review-platform or load-file integration is described with what moves and in which direction, and no integration documentation is published.

Source: Vendor Published
AA on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyDeployment options and data residency are published, including the regions available, what changes between tiers, and where processing happens as distinct from where data is stored.

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.

Deployment options are published with tenancy, regions and processing location. The security page states a single-tenant architecture with a separate AWS account, network, servers, databases and storage per client and dedicated resources per matter, deployment into any AWS region to meet local residency rules within forty-eight hours, hosting stated across the United States, European Union, United Kingdom, United Arab Emirates, Australia and Singapore, and the options of hosting in a client's own AWS environment or a government-approved FedRAMP environment; all processing and communication with cloud services occurs inside the client's private VPC over private links. The vendor contrasts this explicitly with shared multi-tenant platforms.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Security Certifications and Trust CenterCertification is real and stated, short of accessible evidence: a named standard without scope, date, or a way to obtain the report.

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 real, dated and scoped, but the report is reachable only through sales. The security page says a SOC 2 Type II audit was completed in November 2025 by an independent service auditor. It covered the control environment and governance, risk assessment, logical access, system operations and change management, and monitoring and incident response. A penetration test was completed in September 2025 by AppSecure, a CREST accredited firm, with all findings fixed and verified.

The vendor plans to pursue ISO 27001 in 2026, which is a plan, not a certification. The auditor is not named, and the SOC 2 report and penetration test summary are available to qualified prospects under NDA by contacting the team.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on Model Supply Chain DisclosureThe vendor refers to advanced or proprietary models without identifying what sits underneath.

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 vendor refers to several AI models without naming them on the pages read. The Alchemy AI page is headed three search engines and multiple AI models, and the home page describes five AI engines. A 2024 third party directory entry mentions GPT-4, but that is not vendor material. The vendor says all processing happens inside the client's locked down AWS VPC, which places inference in the client's environment without naming the provider or model. No commitment to notify customers of model changes is stated. The Alchemy AI page was not opened and may say more.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Commercial TransparencyReal pricing is published for part of the range, with enterprise tiers withheld, or the unit and structure are stated without the figure.

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 of pricing are stated, but not the figure. Cloud Utility Pricing charges by the hour while a site is in use and a much lower rate, stated as seventy percent less, when it is switched off. Customers can schedule operating hours and use an energy saver power down, and the vendor says most clients save fifty to sixty percent on hosting. The 2023 launch describes a low hourly rate without naming it. A pricing page exists in the navigation and was not opened; it may show the figure.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on Firm and Practice CoverageSegment and practice coverage is described with substance, short of the boundaries: what is supported is clear, what is not is left open.

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. The platform is sold to law firms, corporate legal departments and investigators for investigations, discovery and litigation, with the Alchemy page naming complex criminal matters, multi-defendant civil cases and joint defense groups as design targets, AI services extending to medical records, transcripts and scanned documents, review stated in any language, and hosting across six named jurisdictions. No matter type, data type or jurisdiction is named as unsupported.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

3 public documents

The public pages on file for Merlin Search Technologies, 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.

Pricing

No published figure

  • You pay by the hour, only while your site is switched on.
  • Switch the site off and the rate drops by about 70 percent; you can schedule it to power down at night and on weekends.
  • The company says most customers cut their hosting bill by half or more this way.
  • The company does not say what the hourly rate is on the pages we could read.

Structure published without a figure on the surfaces read. Cloud Utility Pricing, launched March 2023: an hourly rate while a site is in use and a lower rate, stated on the home page as seventy percent less, while it is switched off; sites can be scheduled to operate only during working hours or powered down automatically when idle; the vendor states most clients save fifty to sixty percent on hosting and, at launch, up to eighty percent for sites not needed around the clock.

AI services are priced separately with what the vendor calls clear pricing to address generative-AI cost concerns. A pricing page exists at merlin.tech/pricing and was not opened on 6 September 2026; a figure there would replace this null. Null means no figure was located, not that the product is free. Home page and 2023 launch release read 6 September 2026.

What changed

Tracked changes at Merlin Search Technologies

Sep 19, 2026Performance evidenceVerified

Merlin published a blinded, citation by citation evaluation of seven OpenAI, Anthropic and Google models available in Alchemy, each writing cited reports from a public opioid litigation document collection (Mallinckrodt, McKesson, Insys, Valeant). An eight pass automated grader checked 777 citations and 454 cited sentences, audited its own verdicts with two graders from other providers, and found no fabricated facts; six of seven models were statistically tied on accuracy, and the most expensive model cost over nine times the cheapest without ranking higher. The article also names GPT-6 Astra and Claude Fable 5.1 as the newest models added to Alchemy, without giving an addition date.

Bears on: Citation Accuracy and Hallucination DisclosureSource

Legal Signals

What each signal means

A 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.

Confidentiality and Privilege

Client Data in Training

Can material a lawyer puts into this product be used to train a model?

No agreement published

No customer agreement, terms of service or equivalent contract is published on any surface located, and no policy page states a position on training. Nothing is granted and nothing is withheld, so a client has no term to hold the firm to. Where a policy page does state a position, the row takes the matching policy value instead and the summary records that no agreement exists.

No customer agreement is published, and no training statement was found. The site's pages on 6 September 2026 include a privacy policy, a GDPR disclosure and a contact page but no terms of service. The security page, security FAQ, Alchemy page and AI services page cover isolation, encryption and validation without saying whether customer content trains any model. The privacy policy was not opened and may say more. Pages checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 6, 2026

Prompt and Output Retention

How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?

Not addressed

No located public material states how long prompts and outputs are retained.

No public material found says how long prompts, answers or matter data are kept. The security page describes data protection from ingestion through final disposition without a retention period or deletion commitment, and no customer agreement is published. The privacy policy was not opened and may say more. Pages checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 6, 2026

Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation

Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?

Own model, documented

The product maintains its own permission model, documented, requiring the firm to keep it aligned.

The product runs its own separation model and documents it down to the matter. The security page describes a separate AWS account for each client; separate servers, database, search and storage for each matter; a URL and independent login for each matter; and role based access control in which every function can be assigned as a permission. On sites shared by several parties, user groups keep private fields, tag sets and searches while sharing folders. The security FAQ adds that each case has its own encryption keys. Pages checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Vendor PublishedEach matter has its own access point and login credentials, keeping matters fully separated even within the same client accountAs of Sep 6, 2026Evidence

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?

Not addressed

No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.

No public material found says whether the customer is told when a third party demands its data. No customer agreement is published, and the security page says nothing about legal process. The privacy policy and GDPR disclosure were not opened and may say more. Pages checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 6, 2026
Accuracy and Authority

Primary Law Corpus Provenance

Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?

Not addressed

No located public material identifies the corpus behind the product’s answers.

The product is not built on a legal corpus: it searches, reviews and answers over the customer's own collected documents and cites its sources to them, so no outside content needs licensing at all. Home page and Alchemy page checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 6, 2026

Good Law Verification

Does the product tell you when the authority it just cited has been overruled?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses whether authority is checked for subsequent history.

Questions of good law fall away on this platform, because the product does not retrieve or cite primary law; its output is sourced reports, review decisions and productions from the customer's documents. Surfaces checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 6, 2026

Refusal and Uncertainty Behavior

What does the product do when the answer is not in the corpus?

Not addressed

No located public material addresses what the product does when it cannot ground an answer.

The answering and review models have no described behavior for an answer they cannot ground or a document they cannot classify with confidence. The platform returns sourced reports and the services are described as validated, but no abstention path or confidence signal is described on the surfaces read; the Alchemy AI page was not opened. Home page and AI services page checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 6, 2026

Fabricated Citation Record

Does a public court record exist addressing fabricated or hallucinated legal citations in output from this product?

None located

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.

No court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Merlin Search Technologies, Alchemy, DiscoveryPartner or Sherlock was found as of 6 September 2026. The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin was searched on the company and product names, along with a general search for court findings on ediscovery review. Results were directory entries and commentary, none of them a court record naming this product.

This describes the public record, not the product. A review platform that cites the customer's own documents has little exposure here.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 6, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?

Not addressed

No located public material engages with bar or ethics guidance.

No ethics opinion, bar rule or professional responsibility framework is tied to the product. The founder publishes books and webinars on generative AI in discovery, which is education rather than guidance alignment, and no customer agreement exists to carry a reference. Home page, security page and headlines navigation checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 6, 2026

Billing and Fee Posture

Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?

Savings claims only

Public materials claim time savings without addressing billing or disclosure, and the product sits inside a fee relationship between a lawyer and a client where those savings would change the bill.

Law firms are a named buyer, and the published position on the bill is a savings claim. Most clients are said to save fifty to sixty percent on hosting under hourly on and off pricing, and AI review is offered at a fraction of the cost of manual review. Hosting is a technology cost a firm may pass on to its client, and nothing addresses how AI assisted review is recorded or disclosed on a client's bill. Home page and 2023 pricing release checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Vendor PublishedMost clients save 50–60% on hosting costsAs of Sep 6, 2026Evidence

Outside Counsel Guideline Readiness

Can a firm get this vendor through a client’s AI clause without a bespoke negotiation?

Not addressed

No located public material supports a client side disclosure obligation.

No subprocessor list or model provider list was found. Amazon Web Services is named as the infrastructure provider, which says where data is hosted, not whose models see it, and the vendor refers to several AI models without naming them. No customer agreement or DPA is published, and the SOC 2 report is available only under NDA to qualified prospects. The privacy policy and GDPR disclosure were not opened and may say more. Pages checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Sep 6, 2026

Court Disclosure Support

If a judge’s standing order requires an AI disclosure, can the product produce one?

Partial record

Some elements of the record are available, short of a document level export.

Some elements of a disclosure record are available and no export of an AI-use record is described. The security page states extensive audit logging of every person's document views, tags, searches and other actions, and the platform's answers are sourced to documents, which together record what was reviewed and by whom; nothing states that a record of the model used, its classifications and the human verification can be exported for a court, and the product's outputs are productions and reports rather than court-facing certifications. Security page and home page checked 6 September 2026.

Source: Vendor PublishedDocument views, tags, searches and other actions are tracked throughoutAs of Sep 6, 2026Evidence
Contact

Correct a record, or ask how something was graded

Every grade and every signal on this index is drawn from public sources and dated. If a record is wrong, out of date, or missing an artifact the index did not locate, send the source and it will be reviewed and the record redated. Vendors are welcome to submit documentation. Nothing on this index is for sale, including a listing, a placement, or a grade.

AI Legal Index

The AI Legal Index is an independent index that tracks changes to AI vendors in legal. It holds 462 vendors across 9 categories, each graded on the same 15 capability axes and recorded against 12 legal signals, from public sources. No vendor pays for inclusion, placement, or rating.

Index Status
Last index update
October 21, 2026
The AI Legal Index is an editorial reference. It is not a regulatory body, not a law firm, and nothing published here is legal advice or a recommendation to retain or avoid a vendor. Records are verified against published sources, bar guidance and public court records. Where a record reads not addressed, the material was not located in public sources on the date shown. See the Methodology page for evaluation standards and limitations.
© 2026 AI Legal Index
3801 N Capital of Texas Hwy, Ste E240 · Austin, TX 78746