Buyer prompt · published evidence

Which legal AI platforms are best for litigation teams handling discovery, chronologies, evidence, depositions, motions, authorities, and case strategy?

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
01CoCounselthomsonreuters.comLegal AI120Openai
02Harveyharvey.aiLegal AI120Openai
03Clio Duoclio.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 · CoCounsel66ab1b39ba…b0cbb
Anthropicanthropic/claude-haiku-4-5Legal AINone observed0085ecf642…60e0e
Geminigoogle/gemini-2.5-flashLegal AIClio Duo77926c0114…75015
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.