Buyer prompt · published evidence

Which legal AI platforms are best for research, drafting, review, analysis, citations, workflow, security, and professional accountability?

An exact prompt-level view of which reviewed brands surfaced and which public URLs the configured AI models cited. No answer text or tenant data is published.

Intent
recommendation
Model providers
3
Categories
1
Last observed
Aug 30, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC
Competitive outcome

Brands surfaced

Ordered by provider breadth, then total mentions and owned-domain citations. A mention is not an endorsement or a position claim.

#BrandCategoryProvidersMentionsOwned citationsProvider evidence
01Harveyharvey.aiLegal AI231Openai · Gemini
02CoCounselthomsonreuters.comLegal AI222Openai · Gemini
03Spellbookspellbook.legalLegal AI110Gemini
04Lexis+ AIlexisnexis.comLegal AI101Openai
Model comparison

Answer matrix

One row per configured provider and category snapshot. Hashes prove answer identity without publishing stored answer text.

ProviderModel versionCategoryBrands surfacedCitationsUnique domainsAnswer hash
Openaiopenai/gpt-4o-miniLegal AIHarvey · CoCounsel · Lexis+ AI777c3f5d61…fc227
Anthropicanthropic/claude-haiku-4-5Legal AINone observed00646730e2…52e7e
Geminigoogle/gemini-2.5-flashLegal AIHarvey · CoCounsel · Spellbook88b73c3a07…da15a
URL-derived citations

Sources cited

Hostnames are derived from the returned public URLs. Best position is the smallest citation position observed.

Snapshot IDs15434873-391f-4505-b99c-df10e62d922c
Corpus versionslegal-ai-platforms-2026-07-27
Benchmark versions4-legal-ai-platforms-2026-07-27-models-64232fd32583

Coverage: Legal AI. Full answers stored: no · Full answers published: no · Tenant data included: no.