Buyer prompt · published evidence

Compare legal AI platforms on accuracy, citations, jurisdictions, workflows, integrations, confidentiality, governance, support, and price.

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
commercial
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
01CoCounselthomsonreuters.comLegal AI261Openai · Gemini
02Lexis+ AIlexisnexis.comLegal AI231Openai · Gemini
03Harveyharvey.aiLegal AI141Openai
04Ironclad AIironcladapp.comLegal AI101Gemini
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+ AI55ca37e08d…abb70
Anthropicanthropic/claude-haiku-4-5Legal AINone observed0034b351cb…1a052
Geminigoogle/gemini-2.5-flashLegal AICoCounsel · Lexis+ AI · Ironclad AI55e3a01c84…5762b
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.