Q
Qanu

Qanu is a legal AI workspace built around Arabic for law firms and in house legal teams in the Gulf. It comes from KazeCorp Systems W.L.L. of Hidd, Bahrain. The AI assistant answers research questions in Arabic or English, cites the provision behind each claim and can be scoped to the documents on a matter. The legal library searches official legislation, circulars and judicial decisions by meaning, including Saudi and UAE sources.

Playbooks hold a firm's preferred positions, fallbacks and hard limits, and review contracts against them clause by clause. Around these tools sit matter documents with project permissions, a collaborative editor where AI edits arrive as tracked changes, and version snapshots. Data can be hosted in Saudi Arabia or the UAE. Enterprise and government buyers can bring their own model keys or run Qanu in their own cloud. A free plan covers one seat, and Enterprise is priced through sales.

Alternatives

Alternatives to Qanu

Vendors in the same categories as Qanu 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.

AA on AI CentralityThe artificial intelligence is the product. Remove the models and there is nothing left to sell.

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 workspace is organized around three model driven tools. The AI assistant plans and runs research in several steps. It searches the legal corpus and any documents scoped to the chat, checks the provisions it cites and writes an answer with sources in Arabic or English. The legal library retrieves provisions by meaning rather than by keyword, across both languages. Playbook review runs a contract against a firm's published rules and returns findings mapped to each clause, with suggested edits.

The assistant can also propose changes to a live document, which arrive as tracked changes. Matter documents, project permissions, version snapshots and a collaborative editor with live cursors and comments hold the material these tools work on, and basic collaborative editing is part of the free plan.

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.

Answers link each claim to the provision or passage behind it and quote the supporting text. A cited provision opens in a side panel with its official reference, its date and a Visit Official Source link. The vendor describes a search first design: semantic search finds the relevant official sources, and the model then summarizes or drafts only from what was found. Product screens show a step that checks the cited laws before the answer is written.

The homepage FAQ states that requiring citations for every claim virtually eliminates the hallucinations common in general purpose AI. No accuracy rate, hallucination rate, test set or evaluation result is published to support that statement. Section 4 of the Terms of Service, effective 25 February 2026, makes the user solely responsible for reviewing outputs for legal accuracy.

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.

The assistant plans its own research, running several steps of search and citation checking before it answers. Edits it proposes to a document arrive as tracked changes on the live file, with Keep all and Reject all controls, and the vendor states those changes are attributed to the user who asked. Playbook review returns the evidence and an analysis for each rule and offers a suggested edit for the reviewer to apply.

The playbook FAQ states that review surfaces issues rather than replacing judgment, and that the firm writes the rules. Section 4 of the Terms of Service, effective 25 February 2026, makes the user solely responsible for reviewing outputs and validating documents before relying on them. Nothing describes when the assistant stops and hands a task back to a person.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on Operational and Outcome EvidenceNo production evidence located. Announcements, funding and launch coverage are not deployment evidence.

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.

Checked the homepage, the About page, the product and use case pages, the law firm and general counsel pages and the guides on 21 October 2026. No customer, law firm or legal department is named, no testimonial is attributed, and no usage or outcome figure is published. The homepage section headed Why Top Firms Trust Qanu names no firm. Companies such as Najd Logistics and Rawabi Holding appear only as sample parties in demonstration documents. Stanford CodeX TechIndex carries a listing for Qanu, last reviewed July 2026, that describes the product.

Source: Operator Verified
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.

The security page states that customer content is not used to train foundation models, and that inference runs under contractual no training and minimal retention terms with model providers where the contract requires it. Neither the Terms of Service nor the Privacy Policy, both effective 25 February 2026, carries a training term. Workspace access follows roles, project access lists and firm boundaries, and the vendor states that its staff do not open customer content for support without written approval.

Section 10 of the terms binds each party to protect the other's confidential information with reasonable care. After a contract ends, customer data is deleted in line with the agreement and applicable retention duties, with no period stated. Privilege and work product are not addressed, and what a model provider may keep is described only through the minimal retention terms.

Source: Vendor Published
BB on UPL and Professional Responsibility PostureA real position is published on advice versus tooling, short of full treatment: commonly a disclaimer without the supervision and competence dimension, or silence on jurisdiction limits.

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.

Section 4 of the Terms of Service, effective 25 February 2026, states that Qanu does not provide legal representation, legal advice or attorney client services unless explicitly agreed in writing. It makes the user responsible for checking outputs and for getting advice from qualified professionals where required. The product is sold to law firms and in house legal teams, the free plan is described for solo lawyers, and the customer cloud option is offered to ministries and government.

The free contract templates on the site each state that they are templates and not legal advice, and several note that the draft is not the issued instrument. The vendor's AI use policy template for firms covers competence, supervision and verification under named court and regulator guidance. The terms themselves name no jurisdiction limits and do not address a lawyer's supervision duties when using the product.

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.

The About page lists precision as a company value, with a focus on accuracy and verified grounding, and the product is described as citing official sources for every claim. No AI governance framework, accountable owner, testing before release, evaluation result or AI management standard such as ISO/IEC 42001 is published. Nothing addresses whether output quality differs between Arabic and English or across the jurisdictions covered.

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.

The security page states that connections use TLS and that stored documents and metadata are encrypted at rest. Customer managed storage keys are available through an Enterprise discussion rather than by default. Access runs on roles, project access lists and firm boundaries, with Microsoft Entra and single sign on for enterprise tenants. Customers can request export or deletion, and data is deleted after the contract ends in line with the agreement, without a stated period.

The Privacy Policy, effective 25 February 2026, describes service providers by category (infrastructure, analytics and operations) and names none, and keeps personal data for as long as necessary. No incident response or breach notification commitment is published.

Source: Vendor Published
CC on AI Liability and RecourseLiability is addressed only through a standard limitation clause that disclaims the exposure the product creates.

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.

Section 12 of the Terms of Service, effective 25 February 2026, provides the service as is and as available, without warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or noninfringement. Section 13 excludes indirect, consequential and punitive damages and lost profits, data and goodwill, and caps total liability at the amount the customer paid, if any, in the twelve months before the claim. No indemnity runs in either direction, and no service level, uptime commitment or output warranty is published.

Bahraini law governs, with exclusive jurisdiction in the courts of Bahrain unless a written enterprise agreement says otherwise.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on Practice Systems Integration DepthNo integration into practice systems located, or the product stands alone and requires work to move to it.

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.

Checked the product, documents, editor, security and pricing pages on 21 October 2026. Word and PDF files up to 25 MiB import into a matter workspace, and drafts export to Word and PDF with Arabic right to left layout preserved. Enterprise tenants sign in through Microsoft Entra. No Word or Outlook add in, document management system such as iManage, NetDocuments or SharePoint, matter management, billing or electronic signature connection is published. Electronic signature is marked as coming soon in the document workspace.

Source: Operator Verified
BB on Deployment Model and Data ResidencyDeployment model is stated clearly with partial residency detail, or residency is offered without the processing location being addressed, or the tenancy model is stated on its own with no residency detail published.

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.

Three tenancy models are published. Qanu Cloud is a multi tenant workspace hosted by Qanu for the Pro and Team tiers. Enterprise customers get an isolated stack operated by Qanu, with logical isolation, single sign on and their own model keys by default. For ministries and government, Qanu runs in the customer's own AWS, GCP or SCCC account, and the customer holds the cloud account, backups and audit trail. Matter data can be hosted in Saudi Arabia or the UAE today, with more countries on the roadmap.

Inference can run in the customer's own virtual private cloud with its own keys, or through a gateway hosted by Qanu with an egress allowlist. The cloud provider behind Qanu Cloud, and where model processing happens on the standard tiers, are not stated.

Source: Vendor Published
DD on Security Certifications and Trust CenterNo independent security attestation located.

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.

Checked the homepage, the security page, the About page, the Legal Notice, the Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy on 21 October 2026. No SOC 2 report, ISO/IEC 27001 certificate or other independent security attestation is claimed, and no trust center is published. The site describes enterprise grade encryption, access control and in country hosting without naming an audited standard.

Source: Operator Verified
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.

No model, model family or model provider is named on any page. The security page describes inference through outside providers bound by no training and minimal retention terms where the contract requires it. Enterprise customers bring their own model keys by default, so the provider contract stays with them, and inference can run in the customer's own cloud. Which providers or models serve the Free, Pro and Team tiers, and which models the bring your own key option supports, is not stated. No subprocessor list or notice of model changes is published.

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 homepage pricing table shows two plans. Free is shown at no cost per user and covers one seat without organization management, basic collaborative editing, legal library search, playbook rules and document review, document analysis and a limited number of chat messages, with no credit card required. Enterprise is priced by contacting sales. It adds unlimited editing, library search and chat, team wide playbooks, organization management with roles and permissions, and a dedicated account manager.

The security page refers to Pro and Team tiers on the multi tenant cloud, which the pricing table does not list. No paid price, currency or implementation fee is published, and the chat limit on the free plan is not quantified. Section 7 of the Terms of Service sets paid pricing in plan details or a separate order form.

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.

Qanu names three buyer groups: law firms, from solo lawyers on the free plan to large firms on Enterprise; general counsel and in house teams; and ministries and government on the customer cloud option. The library covers official sources for supported jurisdictions, including Saudi and UAE legislation, circulars and judicial decisions, with more on the roadmap. The vendor states one limit directly: English common law work tied to the DIFC or London can stay on tools such as Harvey or Legora, while Qanu covers Arabic and bilingual Gulf matters.

The About page names contract analysis, due diligence, compliance and litigation, and product examples cover employment contracts, commercial leases and labor disputes. Practice area support is not set out beyond these examples.

Source: Vendor Published
Sources on file

9 public documents

The public pages on file for Qanu, 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

Custom pricing; free plan available

  • Qanu has a free plan for one person.
  • The free plan includes basic editing, library search, playbook review and a limited number of chat messages.
  • You do not need a credit card to start.
  • The Enterprise plan is priced by talking to sales.
  • It adds unlimited use, team playbooks, user management and an account manager.

The homepage pricing table lists Free, shown at no cost per user, and Enterprise, priced through sales. Free covers one seat without organization management, basic collaborative editing, legal library search, playbook rules and document review, document analysis and a limited number of chat messages. Enterprise adds unlimited collaborative editing, library search and chat, playbooks with team wide published standards, organization management with granular roles and permissions, and a dedicated account manager with priority onboarding. The security page refers to Pro and Team tiers on Qanu Cloud that the pricing table does not show.

Implementation: Not stated.

Confidentiality and data terms: Not applicable. No data processing addendum is published.

Note: No paid price, currency or implementation fee is published, and the chat limit on the free plan is not quantified. Section 7 of the Terms of Service, effective 25 February 2026, places paid pricing in plan details or a separate order form, and failure to pay undisputed fees can suspend service.

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?

Never, in policy only

A public policy or trust page states no training on customer content, with no matching term located in the published agreement.

The security page states that customer content is not used to train foundation models, and that model providers are bound by contractual no training and minimal retention terms where the contract requires it. The Terms of Service and the Privacy Policy, both effective 25 February 2026, contain no training term. The Privacy Policy counts documents and prompts among the data it collects and lists improving the Services among the purposes for processing.

Source: Vendor PublishedCustomer content is not used to train foundation models.As of Oct 21, 2026Evidence

Prompt and Output Retention

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

Disclosed without a period

Retention is acknowledged in public materials with no stated period.

The security page lets customers request export or deletion to match their own retention policy and contract. It says that after the contract ends customer data is deleted in line with the agreement and applicable retention duties, with no copy kept for model training. The Privacy Policy, effective 25 February 2026, keeps personal data for as long as necessary to run the service, meet legal obligations and resolve disputes.

Model providers work under minimal retention terms where the contract requires it. No retention period for prompts, chats or outputs is stated.

Source: Vendor PublishedRequest export or deletion to match your retention policy and contract.As of Oct 21, 2026Evidence

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.

Qanu keeps its own permission model. Access runs on roles, project access lists and firm boundaries. Editors and viewers are invited per project or document, and access can be revoked when a matter closes or counsel changes. Playbooks carry their own access control. Qanu does not connect to a document management system, so no outside permissions carry across, and nothing describes conflict checks or walls between matters beyond project membership.

Source: Vendor PublishedInvite editors and viewers per project or document.As of Oct 21, 2026Evidence

Third Party Request and Subpoena Notice

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

Disclosure addressed, notice absent

Published terms or policy address disclosure to authorities or in response to legal process, and no commitment or reservation regarding customer notice is located anywhere. The vendor has told the customer that data can leave and has said nothing about whether the customer hears of it.

Section 5 of the Privacy Policy, effective 25 February 2026, allows data to be shared with authorities where law, a court order or lawful process requires it. Neither the Privacy Policy nor the Terms of Service commits to telling the customer before or after such a disclosure, and no transparency report is published.

Source: Vendor Publishedauthorities where required by law, court order, or lawful processAs of Oct 21, 2026Evidence
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?

Sources named, basis unstated

Sources are identified without stating the license or rights basis.

The library and the assistant draw on official sources for supported jurisdictions, including Saudi and UAE legislation and related instruments. Library screens show laws, circulars and judicial decisions from the Saudi corpus, including Supreme Court principles. Each provision opens with its official reference, its date and a link to the official source. The rights basis for the corpus and how often it is updated are not stated.

Source: Vendor PublishedOfficial sources for supported jurisdictions, including KSA and UAE legislation and related instrumentsAs of Oct 21, 2026Evidence

Good Law Verification

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

Own treatment signal

The vendor computes and surfaces subsequent history itself, with the method described.

Library results and cited provisions carry a status label beside the issue date, shown as Active in the vendor's product screens, and the assistant shows a step that checks the laws it cites before answering. The vendor does not describe how status is determined, whether amended or repealed provisions are flagged, or how judicial principles are tracked after later decisions.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 21, 2026Evidence

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.

Checked the homepage FAQ, the assistant, library and playbook pages and the Terms of Service on 21 October 2026. The vendor describes a search first design in which the model drafts only from official sources found by search, and states that citations are required for every claim. Nothing describes what the assistant does when search finds no supporting source, and no abstention path, confidence measure or no answer response is published.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 21, 2026Evidence

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.

The AI Hallucination Cases database maintained by Damien Charlotin, updated 19 October 2026, records no decision naming Qanu or KazeCorp Systems. Each provision the assistant cites links to its official source.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 21, 2026Evidence
Professional Responsibility

Bar Guidance Alignment

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

Named guidance addressed

Public materials engage with at least one named ethics opinion.

Qanu's AI use policy template for law firms, last reviewed 16 October 2026, works through named guidance: DIFC Courts Practical Guidance Note No. 2 of 2023, the QICDRC Practice Direction on the Use of Artificial Intelligence (No. 1 of 2026), SDAIA's generative AI guidelines, the SRA's August 2026 warning notice and ABA Formal Opinion 512. It sets a disclosure rule for each court and records that no guidance on lawyers' use of AI from the Saudi Bar Association or the Ministry of Justice was found. The template addresses a firm's own policy and does not map Qanu's product to that guidance.

Source: Vendor PublishedAt least two GCC courts publish rules on AI in proceedingsAs of Oct 21, 2026Evidence

Billing and Fee Posture

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

Audit record only

A usable record of AI assisted work exists with no published fee guidance.

Playbook reviews keep a run history recording the document, the party represented, who started the review, when it ran, how long it took and its findings. Chat answers keep their cited sources. Edits the assistant proposes arrive as tracked changes attributed to the user who asked. The vendor's AI use policy template for firms tells clients through engagement terms that AI may be used, follows client instructions not to use it and does not bill time spent learning AI tools. Nothing published addresses how work completed faster with AI should be billed or shown on an invoice.

Source: Vendor PublishedAs of Oct 21, 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.

Checked the security page, the Privacy Policy, the Terms of Service, the Legal Notice and the guides on 21 October 2026. No subprocessor list, model provider list, data processing addendum or client facing disclosure material is published. The Privacy Policy describes its service providers by category only.

Source: Operator VerifiedAs of Oct 21, 2026Evidence

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.

Chat answers keep the cited provisions and quoted passages behind each claim, playbook reviews keep a run history by document, reviewer and date, and named version snapshots keep a document's history. Edits the assistant proposes are attributed to the user who asked rather than marked as AI output, and nothing records which model produced an answer. The vendor's AI use policy template sets a disclosure rule for the DIFC Courts and the QFC courts and includes a verification checklist, without product support for producing a disclosure record.

Source: Vendor Publishedpropose edits that land as tracked changes on the live file, attributed to youAs of Oct 21, 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