O
Omnilex
Omnilex is an AI workspace for Swiss law that brings statutes, court decisions, commentary and a firm's own knowledge into one place for research and drafting. The site counts 1,057,541 sources: 797,321 court decisions, 222,525 commentaries, 22,181 laws and articles, 13,162 official documents and 2,352 pieces of literature, federal and cantonal, refreshed continuously. The company writes the Omnilex Commentary article by article; it is drafted by AI, labeled as such and cited to statute and case law.
Firms can build agents without code to run their own playbooks. Users pick the answering model from GPT-5.6, Claude Opus 5, Mistral Large 3, Kimi K2.6 and Grok 4.6, all processed on Swiss infrastructure. Hosting is on Microsoft Azure in Zürich, and the company holds ISO/IEC 27001:2022. Pricing is published per seat. Named customers include the Swiss Confederation, Bayer and the insurer Dextra. Omnilex is operated by Omnilex AG of Zurich.
Omnilex, 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 Omnilex
Vendors in the same categories as Omnilex 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.
- BBlue JBlue J is an AI research tool for tax law, sold in the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom.
- JJusbrasilJusbrasil is a Brazilian legal information platform operated by Goshme Soluções para a Internet Ltda. of Salvador, Bahia.
- LLegitQuestLegitQuest combines an Indian legal research database with tools that retrieve authorities, break down judgments and display later case treatment. iSearch finds relevant material, iDRAF…
- LLexlegis.aiLexlegis.ai is an Indian legal AI platform operated by Lexlegis Solutions Private Limited of Mumbai.
- MManupatraManupatra is an Indian legal research platform, founded in 2000.
- AAptus.AIAptus.AI is an AI research, drafting and regulatory monitoring platform for legal and compliance work, sold as Next-OS since 30 June 2026.
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 models drive what people use, on top of a large content collection. The site counts 1,057,541 sources, mostly 797,321 Swiss court decisions and 22,181 laws and articles, and that collection would still work as a Swiss law database without any model. The AI adds a reasoning layer over it and one thing that exists only because of the models: the Omnilex Commentary, 222,525 annotations the company writes article by article.
Agents built without code from a firm's own playbooks sit on top. The pricing page sells sources, models and agents together as one license.
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 documented and clearly labeled. Omnilex says every claim is cited and ready for the file, and its home page example shows an annotation to article 336c of the Code of Obligations footnoted to its authorities. Users choose whether research draws on court rulings, commentary or internal data. The commentary Omnilex generates is labeled as AI drafted, so a lawyer can tell machine written analysis from published doctrine.
No accuracy figure, evaluation, benchmark or test set is published, and clause 6 of the terms says the provider accepts no liability for the accuracy or legal usability of generated content.
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 is a contract duty, and agents run when a user starts them. Clause 6 of the terms says the user remains responsible for reviewing, adapting and using all content, which puts the check on the lawyer in the binding document rather than in marketing. The product description matches: clause 2 speaks of AI assisted suggestions, and the product page describes a system that analyzes documents, laws and judgments, structures arguments and highlights relevant content.
Agents are built from a firm's own playbooks and review steps and run on demand, so they start only when a person starts them, and the worked example shows its four steps. The boundary is not published. Nothing says what an agent completes without a human once started, what happens when a step fails or returns nothing, or what separates a suggestion from an action. The firm writes the workflow, so the limits are set by the customer and not described.
Operational and Outcome Evidence
Named, dated evidence that the product works in production at real firms or legal departments. Case studies with figures and identified customers count. Unattributed testimonials and launch announcements do not.
Ten customers are named by logo: the Swiss Confederation, Bayer, the legal protection insurer Dextra, the pension fund Asga, the disability charity Pro Infirmis, and the firms SwissLegal, Ruoss Voegele, Neuwerk, Domenig and Seeger Frick. Two have case pages with named people on video: Florian Probala, Chief Claims Officer at Dextra, and Dr. iur. Marco S. Marty, Founding Partner at MV Legal Partners. One figure is published: over 6,000 lawyers use the platform. That counts adoption, not outcomes; no figure is tied to a named customer, and nothing is dated.
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.
Omnilex addresses professional secrecy in Swiss terms but says nothing about training. Its home page says models are processed on Swiss infrastructure so attorney client privilege stays intact, and that the platform was built for professional secrecy from day one. The license agreement and data processing agreement are described as drafted to respect professional secrecy and auxiliary person liability, the Swiss doctrine on a lawyer's responsibility for third parties they engage.
Clause 7 of the terms covers deletion after the contract ends, subject to statutory retention. Two gaps remain. Nothing describes separation between customers, users or matters, although work is organized into named projects and mandates. And nothing says whether customer content is used for training.
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 terms take a position on tool versus advice. Clause 2 describes the service as software that supports users on legal questions with AI assisted suggestions. Clause 6 says the provider accepts no liability for the accuracy or legal usability of generated content and that the user is responsible for reviewing, adapting and using all of it. The product covers Swiss law throughout, and the terms are governed by Swiss law with jurisdiction in Zurich.
Professional secrecy and auxiliary person liability are named. No statement says output is not legal advice, and nothing covers the professional relationship. No bar or professional body guidance is named, neither the BGFA nor Swiss Bar Association material.
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.
Omnilex's SafeBase trust center lists AI Security, AI Governance and AI Monitoring as published items, which shows a governance position exists, but the items themselves do not display on the public portal. Nothing addresses bias or uneven output, such as whether results differ across cantons, languages, court levels or party types, which matters in a federal system with three official languages.
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.
Most of the ground is covered, with two gaps. Access controls are stated: SAML single sign on, audit logs, IP allowlisting and data lifecycle management, plus credential management, brute force protection, account hardening, endpoint detection and response and disk encryption in the trust center. Data is encrypted at rest and in transit. Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure are named as subprocessors. A dedicated incident response team is stated, and backups, business continuity, disaster recovery and DDoS protection appear as trust center items.
The gaps: retention is given only as deletion after the contract ends unless the law requires otherwise, with no period during the term, and there is no deadline for telling customers about an incident, with the trust center saying more detail is available on request.
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.
Clause 6 of the terms says use is at the user's own risk, the provider accepts no liability for the accuracy or legal usability of generated content, the user is responsible for reviewing and using all content, and liability is limited to gross negligence and intent. That is the widest exclusion Swiss law permits, so nothing is recoverable for ordinary negligence, and no monetary cap is set. Cyber insurance is listed as a trust center document.
No indemnity runs either way, and clause 6 disclaims any warranty on output. Clause 5 targets at least 90 percent availability outside maintenance windows and says this is not guaranteed. Clause 9 says use rests on a separate license agreement, which is not published and sits behind the trust center access flow, so its terms are not public.
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.
Integration is claimed but not specified. The product page says a firm can connect its document management and legal tools without media breaks and keep its workflows. None of those systems is named: no document management, practice management or electronic filing product, no connector list and no integrations page. Enterprise plans include custom integrations and APIs, but no API or developer documentation is published. What is concrete is SAML single sign on across plans and company SSO at enterprise level.
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.
Residency is stated with a named city and cloud, and tenancy is not addressed. Omnilex says it is hosted on Microsoft Azure in Zurich, that data is encrypted at rest and in transit and hosted entirely on its Swiss Azure cloud, and that models run on Swiss infrastructure. The pricing FAQ says data is processed in Switzerland and in selected EU countries that the Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner recognizes as adequate.
Two gaps remain. Nothing says whether the platform is multitenant or single tenant, or how one firm's data is kept apart from another's. And hosting described as entirely Swiss sits beside processing that extends to EU countries, with no explanation. No on premises or customer cloud option is offered.
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.
Omnilex runs a SafeBase trust center at trust.omnilex.ai that shows ISO/IEC 27001:2022 and lists documents including a penetration test report dated 5 September 2025, the Omnilex License Agreement with a DPA template, technical documentation, cyber insurance, a data security policy and a network diagram. Omnilex's home page says the certification is audited across the whole organization. The portal splits public and private documents behind a request flow and does not say whether access is instant on an email or NDA click, or only after review. No auditor, certificate number, issue date or validity period is 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.
Five models are named, with versions, as selectable on Omnilex's home page: GPT-5.6, Claude Opus 5, Mistral Large 3, Kimi K2.6 and Grok 4.6, with the user choosing which answers. Omnilex says every frontier model is processed on Swiss infrastructure so attorney client privilege stays intact, and hosting is on Microsoft Azure in Zurich. Omnilex's trust center names Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure as subprocessors.
No model provider is named as a legal entity or listed as a subprocessor, so it is not clear who contracts for each model or what it may keep, and it is not stated whether the models run inside the Swiss setup or through the providers' own APIs. There is no commitment to notify customers when the model set changes.
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.
Rates are published with unit and term: CHF 2,000 per user billed annually for a single user, CHF 1,600 per user billed annually for teams from two users, and a custom agreement for enterprise from twenty users, all excluding VAT. Omnilex says the price scales only with the number of people who use it. Onboarding, setup, training and support are included in every plan, and Omnilex's FAQ says nothing essential is held back for a higher tier.
Team adds collaboration and integration of a firm's own knowledge, and Enterprise adds SSO, custom integrations and APIs. A fourteen day free trial needs no card or commitment. Usage limits are published at up to 1,000 pages and 500MB per document. Only the enterprise price is withheld, which the page explains as a scoping conversation about integrations and support.
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.
Four buyer groups each have a page described by the work: law firms doing research, drafting and review; in house teams, from contract review to regulatory questions; public administrations applying federal and cantonal sources; and insurers assessing claims against statute and precedent. Named references include the Swiss Confederation and a legal protection insurer. Swiss coverage is shown by the counted federal and cantonal sources.
No practice areas are listed; home page examples cover employment, tenancy and accident insurance law, but only as illustrations. No firm size band is given beyond the seat thresholds in pricing, nothing says whether any jurisdiction besides Switzerland is served, and nothing says what is not supported.
2 public documents
The public pages on file for Omnilex, 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.
-
omnilex.ai/legal/terms1 signal
Prompt and Output Retention
Read Sep 2, 2026
-
Fabricated Citation Record
Read Sep 2, 2026
From CHF 1,600 per user per year
- Omnilex publishes its prices, which most legal AI companies do not.
- One person on their own pays CHF 2,000 a year. Teams of two or more pay CHF 1,600 per person per year.
- Big firms of twenty or more get a custom deal you have to ask about.
- Everything is included in every plan: all the law, all the AI models, and the security. You only pay more for more people.
- Training and set-up are included too, and you can try the whole thing free for 14 days without a card.
Rates are published per seat, with unit, term and inclusions. Individual, for one user, is CHF 2,000 per user billed annually. Team, from two users, is CHF 1,600 per user billed annually and is marked as the most chosen. Enterprise, from twenty users, is a custom agreement adding company SSO, custom integrations and APIs, individual feature additions and priority support with a four hour response. Prices exclude VAT.
A monthly option exists, and Omnilex's FAQ says both options include the same product, with annual cheaper per seat. The entry price is CHF 1,600, the lowest recurring paid rate published, which needs two seats; a single user pays CHF 2,000. Prices are shown in Swiss francs as published. Every plan includes over a million sources, every frontier model, agent building, Omnilex Cases, unlimited use and documents up to 1,000 pages and 500MB, plus onboarding, setup, training and support from the Zurich team. A fourteen day free trial needs no card or commitment.
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?
A published agreement or policy exists and none of it addresses the question either way, or the document that would answer it could not be read and the summary names the retrieval limit. The summary states which shape the silence takes: an improvement right granted that never names training, or no improvement right granted at all.
Nothing published says whether customer content is used to train or improve models. Clause 7 of the terms covers data protection by reference to the privacy policy and deletion after the contract ends, and clause 8 reserves rights in the software, content, models and generated data to the provider, without mentioning training. The privacy policy covers the website only and points to the data processing agreement in the trust center for the app at app.omnilex.ai.
That agreement sits behind an access flow and was not available to read. Statements that models run on Swiss infrastructure and that the license respects professional secrecy do not mention training.
Prompt and Output Retention
How long does the product keep what a lawyer typed, and can that be set to zero?
Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.
Retention is acknowledged in the terms with no period attached. Clause 7 ties deletion to an event, the end of the contract, with no window for how long after and an open exception for statutory retention duties. Nothing says how long prompts, chats, generated drafts or uploaded documents persist during the term, and the customer is offered no retention setting. Omnilex's trust center lists a data erasure item and a data lifecycle management control among its defaults, and its home page names data lifecycle management as a control legal teams expect, but neither gives a figure.
The one specific limit published concerns size, not time: the pricing page caps documents at 1,000 pages and 500MB. The data processing agreement, where retention detail would normally sit, is behind the trust center access flow.
Ethical Walls and Matter Segregation
Does retrieval respect the firm’s ethical walls, or can the model read across them?
No located public material addresses walls or matter level segregation.
Nothing describes separation between customers, between users inside a firm, or between matters. The product is organized around matters, with the interface showing named projects such as a share purchase, a due diligence, a litigation matter and an estate, and the pricing page adds team and project collaboration at the Team tier and know how integration, so the structure for separation exists. What is missing is any statement that it works as a boundary: nothing says whether one user in a firm can reach another's project, whether ethical walls can be set up, or how tenants are isolated from each other.
Access controls are published at the account level instead, with SAML single sign on, audit logs and IP allowlisting. The gap sits awkwardly with Omnilex's own focus on professional secrecy, since conflict walls are part of what Swiss professional secrecy asks of a firm.
Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice
If someone subpoenas the vendor for a firm’s data, does the firm hear about it first?
No located term or policy addresses third party requests for customer data.
Nothing addresses disclosure to authorities or in response to legal process, or notice to the customer if a demand arrives. The terms have no confidentiality article and no clause on required disclosure. The privacy policy lists legal obligations as a basis for processing, but it covers the website rather than the application, and its recipients are website service providers. The license agreement with a DPA template, the document where such a clause would sit, is listed in the trust center behind an access flow.
Omnilex's focus on professional secrecy makes the silence more notable, since a demand for a lawyer's file is exactly the case auxiliary person liability is meant for.
Primary Law Corpus Provenance
Where does the law in this product come from, and does the vendor have the right to use it?
Sources are identified without stating the license or rights basis.
Sources are identified by category and counted: 797,321 court decisions, 222,525 commentaries, 22,181 laws and articles, 13,162 official documents and 2,352 pieces of literature, 1,057,541 in total, described as federal and cantonal material refreshed continuously. The Omnilex Commentary is Omnilex's own, written article by article, labeled as AI drafted and cited to statute and case law. No rights basis is stated: no publisher, database or data supplier is named for any category, and no license or permission is described.
That matters most for the 2,352 pieces of literature and whatever underlies the commentary category, since Swiss legal literature is commercially published and, unlike federal and cantonal case law, is not free to redistribute by default.
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.
Nothing says whether a decision the product returns is still good law: no treatment flags, no subsequent history, and nothing on whether a judgment has been confirmed, distinguished or departed from. The nearest claims are about the freshness of the collection, not the standing of any one authority. Sources are described as refreshed continuously, and the product page offers to keep users informed about the latest changes in legislation and jurisprudence at federal, state and cantonal levels.
That covers what has been added, not what has been overtaken. It matters here because the product retrieves case law and its own commentary as the basis for cited answers, and Swiss practice depends heavily on whether the Federal Supreme Court has since moved.
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 describes what the platform does when it cannot ground an answer, and no confidence, relevance or grounding indicator is described. The published answer is that the user checks: every claim is said to be cited, the commentary says every statement is citable, and clause 6 of the terms makes the user responsible for reviewing and adapting all content. Users can limit which source types are consulted, which shapes retrieval but says nothing about what happens when retrieval comes back thin.
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, and reporting based on it, records no court order, opinion or disciplinary record naming Omnilex or Omnilex AG. The database is weighted heavily to United States filings, its European coverage is thinner, and Switzerland is not among the jurisdictions commonly reported in it, so a Swiss product is less likely to appear even if an incident occurred. Swiss judgments are also published in three languages, which limits how reliably an English language search reaches them.
Bar Guidance Alignment
Has the vendor engaged in public with the ethics opinions its buyers are bound by?
Public materials refer to professional responsibility in general terms without naming guidance.
Omnilex refers to professional duties directly but names no authority. It says the platform was built for professional secrecy from day one, that models are processed on Swiss infrastructure so attorney client privilege stays intact, and that its license agreement and data processing agreement respect professional secrecy and auxiliary person liability. Neither the Federal Act on the Free Movement of Lawyers nor the criminal provision on professional secrecy is named, and no Swiss Bar Association or cantonal bar guidance is cited. Nothing says what a lawyer must do to meet those duties when using the product.
Billing and Fee Posture
Does the vendor address what happens to the bill when the work takes an hour instead of six?
The product sits inside a lawyer to client fee relationship and no located public material addresses billing, fee or disclosure treatment, with no savings claim published either.
Nothing addresses how AI assisted work is recorded, billed or disclosed to a client, and no record of it per matter is described. Omnilex makes no quantified savings claim; its language is about being faster, more precise and dependable, with no time or cost figure. A third party report credits users with a 93 percent research time saving, a figure Omnilex does not publish. Work is organized into named mandates with audit logs, but neither is described as something that can be reported against a bill.
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 subprocessor list is published and reachable without an agreement: the legal section of Omnilex's trust center names Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure, and the same portal lists a data processing agreement, cyber insurance and a license agreement with a DPA template. The pricing FAQ says a data processing agreement is part of every license. The two subprocessors are infrastructure only. Five models are named on the home page as selectable, and none of their providers appears in the list or anywhere else as a contracting party.
The license and DPA sit behind the trust center access flow, so what a firm can hand a client without asking is the subprocessor list and the certification, not the documents.
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.
Nothing addresses disclosing AI use to a court or authority, and no exportable record for each document of the model used, sources retrieved and human check is described. The product leaves a trail for the lawyer's own use: every claim is cited, the commentary is labeled as AI drafted, and audit logging is a standard control. None of these is presented as a record of model use, and none shows which of the five selectable models produced a given passage.