Buyer prompt · published evidence

How should a buyer compare legal AI pricing across users, matters, documents, research content, modules, implementation, and support?

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
01Lexis+ AIlexisnexis.comLegal AI110Gemini
02Clio Duoclio.comLegal AI101Gemini
03Harveyharvey.aiLegal 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 AIHarvey77b20561ce…95bb6
Anthropicanthropic/claude-haiku-4-5Legal AINone observed0025695393…87de8
Geminigoogle/gemini-2.5-flashLegal AILexis+ AI · Clio Duo66e48755d8…24f31
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.