Buyer prompt · published evidence

Recommend a legal AI platform for cited case, statute, regulation, secondary-source, and jurisdiction-specific research with verification.

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
01Lexis+ AIlexisnexis.comLegal AI202Openai · Gemini
02Harveyharvey.aiLegal AI111Gemini
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 AILexis+ AI44b921c4d5…51b26
Anthropicanthropic/claude-haiku-4-5Legal AINone observed0051a5102d…4c857
Geminigoogle/gemini-2.5-flashLegal AIHarvey · Lexis+ AI · Clio Duo888424484b…d4ca6
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.