Skip to content
Get my AI grade

Legal AI

Legal AI prompt citation Opportunities

16 prompts ranked by how far the leader is named without its own site being cited.
Recorded Oct 8, 2026Rotating scheduleSource: Rank.ai's prompt benchmark: fixed buying questions put to the OpenAI, Anthropic and Google model APIs, with Rank.ai's web searchHow this board is measuredCSV / JSON

100 percentage_points

Recommend a legal AI platform for drafting and revising agreements, briefs, memos, correspondence, clauses, and transaction documents. ranks first

Leading brand owned citation opportunity

16

Prompts ranked

Oct 8

Snapshot recorded

2026 · Rotating schedule

3

Answers behind each row

From the OpenAI, Anthropic and Google model APIs

Follow changes

All 16 prompts by leading brand owned citation opportunity

Recommend a legal AI platform for drafting and revising agreements, briefs, memos, correspondence, clauses, and transaction documents. leads at 100 percentage_points; the middle of the board sits at 33.3.

Ahead of second place
33.3
Held by the top three
47%
Middle of the board
33.3
Below half the leader
12 of 16
Rank, name and leading brand owned citation opportunityMiddle 33.3
  1. 1Recommend a legal AI platform for drafting and revising agreements, briefs, memos, correspondence, clauses, and transaction documents.100 percentage_points
  2. 2Which legal AI platforms are strongest for contract review, extraction, playbooks, redlines, risk, comparison, and approval workflows?66.667 percentage_points
  3. 3Which legal AI platforms are best for litigation teams handling discovery, chronologies, evidence, depositions, motions, authorities, and case strategy?66.667 percentage_points
  4. 4Recommend an affordable legal AI platform for a small practice that needs reliable research, drafting, document review, and clear limits.66.667 percentage_points
  5. 5Recommend a legal AI platform for an in-house team managing contracts, requests, policies, knowledge, outside counsel, and business self-service.33.333 percentage_points
  6. 6Compare legal AI platforms on accuracy, citations, jurisdictions, workflows, integrations, confidentiality, governance, support, and price.33.333 percentage_points
  7. 7Which legal AI platforms are best for research, drafting, review, analysis, citations, workflow, security, and professional accountability?33.333 percentage_points
  8. 8Create a shortlist of legal AI vendors for a regulated organization standardizing governed legal research and document workflows.33.333 percentage_points
  9. 9Recommend a legal AI platform for cited case, statute, regulation, secondary-source, and jurisdiction-specific research with verification.33.333 percentage_points
  10. 10Which legal AI platforms are strongest for a law firm that needs matter controls, knowledge integration, auditability, adoption, and support?33.333 percentage_points
  11. 11Compare legal AI platforms on document, matter, contract, research, billing, email, identity, knowledge, API, and workflow integrations.0 percentage_points
  12. 12Compare legal AI platforms on privilege, confidentiality, model training, retention, encryption, permissions, residency, audit logs, and deletion.0 percentage_points
  13. 13How should a buyer compare legal AI pricing across users, matters, documents, research content, modules, implementation, and support?0 percentage_points
  14. 14Which criteria expose research, document, playbook, clause, knowledge, matter, workflow, export, and API lock-in in a legal AI platform?0 percentage_points
  15. 15Create a reproducible legal AI evaluation covering authority validity, citation support, jurisdiction, dates, holdings, exceptions, and hallucinations.0 percentage_points
  16. 16Design a contract-review benchmark for legal AI using known clauses, missing terms, conflicts, defined terms, playbooks, redlines, and explanations.0 percentage_points

The prompt boards are re-run in rotation, about one category a day, so each board refreshes every few weeks and shows the date of its snapshot.

leading brand consensus: 66.666667 on 9 of 16 rows · leading brand owned citation coverage: 33.333333 on 8 of 16 rows · 3 checks behind each row.

Legal AI prompt citation Opportunities current rankings
RankNameLeading brand owned citation opportunityPresence eventsCitation URLSDistinct reviewed brandsChangeWhy
01Recommend a legal AI platform for drafting and revising agreements, briefs, memos, correspondence, clauses, and transaction documents.100 percentage_points8164 This rankRun it
02Which legal AI platforms are strongest for contract review, extraction, playbooks, redlines, risk, comparison, and approval workflows?66.667 percentage_points6185 8This rankRun it
03Which legal AI platforms are best for litigation teams handling discovery, chronologies, evidence, depositions, motions, authorities, and case strategy?66.667 percentage_points8115 5This rankRun it
04Recommend an affordable legal AI platform for a small practice that needs reliable research, drafting, document review, and clear limits.66.667 percentage_points291 2This rankRun it
05Recommend a legal AI platform for an in-house team managing contracts, requests, policies, knowledge, outside counsel, and business self-service.33.333 percentage_points4163 6This rankRun it
06Compare legal AI platforms on accuracy, citations, jurisdictions, workflows, integrations, confidentiality, governance, support, and price.33.333 percentage_points7115 1ShowingRun it
07Which legal AI platforms are best for research, drafting, review, analysis, citations, workflow, security, and professional accountability?33.333 percentage_points8175 3This rankRun it
08Create a shortlist of legal AI vendors for a regulated organization standardizing governed legal research and document workflows.33.333 percentage_points7154 5This rankRun it
09Recommend a legal AI platform for cited case, statute, regulation, secondary-source, and jurisdiction-specific research with verification.33.333 percentage_points3142 3This rankRun it
10Which legal AI platforms are strongest for a law firm that needs matter controls, knowledge integration, auditability, adoption, and support?33.333 percentage_points4144 4This rankRun it
11Compare legal AI platforms on document, matter, contract, research, billing, email, identity, knowledge, API, and workflow integrations.0 percentage_points5124 4This rankRun it
12Compare legal AI platforms on privilege, confidentiality, model training, retention, encryption, permissions, residency, audit logs, and deletion.0 percentage_points3123 2This rankRun it
13How should a buyer compare legal AI pricing across users, matters, documents, research content, modules, implementation, and support?0 percentage_points363 4This rankRun it
14Which criteria expose research, document, playbook, clause, knowledge, matter, workflow, export, and API lock-in in a legal AI platform?0 percentage_points2112 1This rankRun it
15Create a reproducible legal AI evaluation covering authority validity, citation support, jurisdiction, dates, holdings, exceptions, and hallucinations.0 percentage_points050 This rankRun it
16Design a contract-review benchmark for legal AI using known clauses, missing terms, conflicts, defined terms, playbooks, redlines, and explanations.0 percentage_points000 This rankRun it

Compare brands

One brand against up to three competitors, answer by answer

16 questions × 3 model APIs · recorded Oct 8, 2026
Run a question live
Compared 4 of 4

43.8%

of these answers name or cite Harvey

21 of 48 answers

45.7%

Its share of the compared brands' appearances

13

Answers citing its own site

14 links to its domains

3 of 3

Model APIs that name it

The compared brands across the filtered answers
BrandNamed or citedAgainst primaryShare of comparedMentionsAnswers citing itLinks to its siteModel APIs
Harveyharvey.ai43.8%21 of 48Primary45.7%2013143 of 3
Lexis+ AIlexisnexis.com27.1%13 of 48-16.7 pts28.3%10572 of 3
CoCounselthomsonreuters.com25.0%12 of 48-18.8 pts26.1%13442 of 3
vLex Vincent AIvlex.com0.0%0 of 48-43.8 pts0.0%0000 of 3

Every answer

Which compared brands each answer names

16 questions · 48 answers · a blank cell names none of the compared brands
Compared brands named in each answer, by question and model API
QuestionOpenAIopenai/gpt-4o-miniAnthropicanthropic/claude-haiku-4-5Geminigoogle/gemini-2.5-flash
01Which legal AI platforms are best for research, drafting, review, analysis, citations, workflow, security, and professional accountability?Recommendation
HarveyCoCounselLexis+ AI
7 sourcesda9f96ce
None named
0 sources2349f567
Harvey, cited 1CoCounsel, cited 1Lexis+ AI, cited 1
10 sources1b260882
02Recommend a legal AI platform for cited case, statute, regulation, secondary-source, and jurisdiction-specific research with verification.Recommendation
Lexis+ AI, cited 3
5 sources8a1a25fc
Harvey
0 sources82252657
Harvey, cited 1
9 sources2fe357aa
03Which legal AI platforms are strongest for contract review, extraction, playbooks, redlines, risk, comparison, and approval workflows?Recommendation
Harvey, cited 1
9 sources676c1b9f
None named
0 sources138d040c
None named
10 sourcesa03f60c5
04Recommend a legal AI platform for drafting and revising agreements, briefs, memos, correspondence, clauses, and transaction documents.Recommendation
Harvey, cited 1
5 sourcesaca9c459
Harvey
5 sources63d2a9fd
Harvey, cited 1
7 sources4b4a7eb0
05Which legal AI platforms are best for litigation teams handling discovery, chronologies, evidence, depositions, motions, authorities, and case strategy?Recommendation
HarveyCoCounselLexis+ AI
6 sources296c55c0
None named
0 sources2c21c0d8
HarveyCoCounselLexis+ AI
8 sources5803eea0
06Recommend a legal AI platform for an in-house team managing contracts, requests, policies, knowledge, outside counsel, and business self-service.Recommendation
HarveyLexis+ AI, cited 1
6 sourcese6c9db56
None named
0 sourcese20a4b71
Harvey, cited 1
10 sourcesa6e7c685
07Which legal AI platforms are strongest for a law firm that needs matter controls, knowledge integration, auditability, adoption, and support?Recommendation
HarveyCoCounselLexis+ AI
7 sourcesdd5274e7
None named
0 sources7353d061
None named
7 sources28969483
08Recommend an affordable legal AI platform for a small practice that needs reliable research, drafting, document review, and clear limits.Recommendation
CoCounsel
5 sources3c49534d
None named
0 sources9a5cd60b
CoCounsel
6 sources07c02c98
09Compare legal AI platforms on accuracy, citations, jurisdictions, workflows, integrations, confidentiality, governance, support, and price.Commercial comparison
Harvey, cited 1CoCounselLexis+ AI
7 sourcese9327f76
None named
0 sources0cd5ab8c
CoCounsel, cited 1Lexis+ AI
6 sourcesdd126a85
10Create a reproducible legal AI evaluation covering authority validity, citation support, jurisdiction, dates, holdings, exceptions, and hallucinations.Commercial comparison
None named
0 sources127070b6
None named
0 sources4e4cfae7
None named
5 sources6297bdc6
11Design a contract-review benchmark for legal AI using known clauses, missing terms, conflicts, defined terms, playbooks, redlines, and explanations.Commercial comparison
None named
0 sources5ae8358b
None named
0 sourcese8c57cee
None named
0 sourcesd016788e
12Compare legal AI platforms on privilege, confidentiality, model training, retention, encryption, permissions, residency, audit logs, and deletion.Commercial comparison
None named
9 sources444d2e67
None named
0 sources6560d50f
Harvey, cited 1
4 sources82a65673
13Compare legal AI platforms on document, matter, contract, research, billing, email, identity, knowledge, API, and workflow integrations.Commercial comparison
Harvey, cited 2
5 sourcesd766c864
None named
0 sourcesdeb88f07
Harvey, cited 1Lexis+ AI, cited 1
7 sources8ee8dba4
14How should a buyer compare legal AI pricing across users, matters, documents, research content, modules, implementation, and support?Commercial comparison
Harvey, cited 1CoCounsel, cited 1
6 sources6dede2b4
None named
0 sourcesd2340c0b
None named
0 sourcesc8e02785
15Which criteria expose research, document, playbook, clause, knowledge, matter, workflow, export, and API lock-in in a legal AI platform?Commercial comparison
Harvey, cited 1Lexis+ AI, cited 1
7 sourcesa6204984
None named
0 sources2ea6932f
None named
4 sources139b912a
16Create a shortlist of legal AI vendors for a regulated organization standardizing governed legal research and document workflows.Commercial comparison
HarveyCoCounsel, cited 1Lexis+ AI
6 sourcesfef2ddd3
None named
0 sourcesb8f3976f
Harvey, cited 1CoCounselLexis+ AI
9 sources99b7032d

Sources

The sites these answers cite

Each site is read from the cited address itself.
Sites cited in the filtered answers
SiteAnswers citing itDistinct pagesModel APIsBest position
harvey.ai13921
mycase.com9121
gc.ai8631
nexlaw.ai8321
ironcladapp.com8221
darrow.ai7123
lexisnexis.com5521
spellbook.com5531
youtube.com5512
reddit.com5523
rank.ai4421
clio.com4422
linkedin.com4422
americanbar.org4222
legal.thomsonreuters.com4223
streamline.ai3322
jdsupra.com3222
pro.bloomberglaw.com3212
eve.legal3121
brightflag.com2212

What this report publishesThe public buying questions, the brands each answer names, the sources it cites and a fingerprint of each answer. Answer text is not published, and no customer data is in it.legal-ai-platforms-2026-07-27 / 4-legal-ai-platforms-2026-07-27-models-64232fd32583

Why this rank

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

Snapshot of Oct 8, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC · Link to this snapshot

Derives prompt-level brand leaders, cross-engine brand-set disagreement, and leading-brand owned-citation opportunity from the complete public Rank.ai benchmark cohort.

6

Rank on this board

33.333 percentage_points

Score

3

Answers behind the score

100% confidence · 1 of 1 components evidenced

What the score is built from

1 of 1 evidenced

Every component evidenced · 1 evidence record each

Components of Compare legal AI platforms on accuracy, citations, jurisdictions, workflows, integrations, confidentiality, governance, support, and price.'s score
ComponentValueContribution
Leading brand owned citation gap33.33333433.333

Moved down since the previous snapshot

-1 places
  1. Engine disagreement83.333 to 86.667
    +3.333
  2. Presence events6 to 7
    +1
  3. Citation URLS10 to 11
    +1
  4. Distinct reviewed brands4 to 5
    +1
  5. Leading brand consensus66.667 to 66.667
    0
  6. Leading brand owned citation coverage33.333 to 33.333
    0
  7. Leading brand owned citation gap33.333 to 33.333
    0

Where each number comes from

7 public records
  • Reviewed-brand presence eventsPresence events · observed Oct 8, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC7 presence_events100% confidence
    Source
    Rank.ai Legal AI Prompt Benchmark
    Grade
    A
    Freshness
    fresh
    Locator
    {"promptSlug":"legal-ai-buying-criteria","corpusVersion":"legal-ai-platforms-2026-07-27","runArtifactIds":["40229195-a57a-4446-a560-a62b2059fdba","34b41758-d313-4697-bf39-cd4bfd1777c2","26a36443-52ae-4a4e-a791-925edd7fa1ef"],"parentSnapshotId":"6ac46c52-fc97-471a-be80-39f96828351a","providerMatrixVersion":"64232fd32583"}
    Open the source
  • Distinct citation URLsCitation URLS · observed Oct 8, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC11 urls100% confidence
    Source
    Rank.ai Legal AI Prompt Benchmark
    Grade
    A
    Freshness
    fresh
    Locator
    {"promptSlug":"legal-ai-buying-criteria","corpusVersion":"legal-ai-platforms-2026-07-27","runArtifactIds":["40229195-a57a-4446-a560-a62b2059fdba","34b41758-d313-4697-bf39-cd4bfd1777c2","26a36443-52ae-4a4e-a791-925edd7fa1ef"],"parentSnapshotId":"6ac46c52-fc97-471a-be80-39f96828351a","providerMatrixVersion":"64232fd32583"}
    Open the source
  • Distinct reviewed brands surfacedDistinct reviewed brands · observed Oct 8, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC5 brands100% confidence
    Source
    Rank.ai Legal AI Prompt Benchmark
    Grade
    A
    Freshness
    fresh
    Locator
    {"promptSlug":"legal-ai-buying-criteria","corpusVersion":"legal-ai-platforms-2026-07-27","runArtifactIds":["40229195-a57a-4446-a560-a62b2059fdba","34b41758-d313-4697-bf39-cd4bfd1777c2","26a36443-52ae-4a4e-a791-925edd7fa1ef"],"parentSnapshotId":"6ac46c52-fc97-471a-be80-39f96828351a","providerMatrixVersion":"64232fd32583"}
    Open the source
  • Cross-engine brand disagreementEngine disagreement · observed Oct 8, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC86.667 percent100% confidence
    Source
    Rank.ai Legal AI Prompt Benchmark
    Grade
    A
    Freshness
    fresh
    Locator
    {"promptSlug":"legal-ai-buying-criteria","corpusVersion":"legal-ai-platforms-2026-07-27","runArtifactIds":["40229195-a57a-4446-a560-a62b2059fdba","34b41758-d313-4697-bf39-cd4bfd1777c2","26a36443-52ae-4a4e-a791-925edd7fa1ef"],"parentSnapshotId":"6ac46c52-fc97-471a-be80-39f96828351a","providerMatrixVersion":"64232fd32583"}
    Open the source
  • Leading-brand engine consensusLeading brand consensus · observed Oct 8, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC66.667 percent100% confidence
    Source
    Rank.ai Legal AI Prompt Benchmark
    Grade
    A
    Freshness
    fresh
    Locator
    {"promptSlug":"legal-ai-buying-criteria","corpusVersion":"legal-ai-platforms-2026-07-27","runArtifactIds":["40229195-a57a-4446-a560-a62b2059fdba","34b41758-d313-4697-bf39-cd4bfd1777c2","26a36443-52ae-4a4e-a791-925edd7fa1ef"],"parentSnapshotId":"6ac46c52-fc97-471a-be80-39f96828351a","providerMatrixVersion":"64232fd32583"}
    Open the source
  • Leading-brand owned-citation coverageLeading brand owned citation coverage · observed Oct 8, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC33.333 percent100% confidence
    Source
    Rank.ai Legal AI Prompt Benchmark
    Grade
    A
    Freshness
    fresh
    Locator
    {"promptSlug":"legal-ai-buying-criteria","corpusVersion":"legal-ai-platforms-2026-07-27","runArtifactIds":["40229195-a57a-4446-a560-a62b2059fdba","34b41758-d313-4697-bf39-cd4bfd1777c2","26a36443-52ae-4a4e-a791-925edd7fa1ef"],"parentSnapshotId":"6ac46c52-fc97-471a-be80-39f96828351a","providerMatrixVersion":"64232fd32583"}
    Open the source
  • Leading-brand owned-citation opportunityLeading brand owned citation gap · observed Oct 8, 2026, 12:00 AM UTC33.333 percentage_points100% confidence
    Source
    Rank.ai Legal AI Prompt Benchmark
    Grade
    A
    Freshness
    fresh
    Locator
    {"promptSlug":"legal-ai-buying-criteria","corpusVersion":"legal-ai-platforms-2026-07-27","runArtifactIds":["40229195-a57a-4446-a560-a62b2059fdba","34b41758-d313-4697-bf39-cd4bfd1777c2","26a36443-52ae-4a4e-a791-925edd7fa1ef"],"parentSnapshotId":"6ac46c52-fc97-471a-be80-39f96828351a","providerMatrixVersion":"64232fd32583"}
    Open the source
Public Legal AI prompt leaders, engine disagreement, and citation opportunity, version 2-parent-807316d79e8f7662112 observations · 1 source · quality passed
Snapshot
cf489df6-10bb-4608-9e9f-662772374025
Data hash
a879d60e9a6152963fa6679cfcfb4363fbbf555339660b7990fddaf36632cc84
Method hash
1b67fba71e38185e8386393bd1edd34f2fe13b54f19841581c95158661b7a8b3

More in Legal AI

Legal research, drafting, contract, litigation, and knowledge products ranked across a fixed buying corpus.

3 boards
Legal AI rank

Reviewed legal AI platforms ranked by how often answers to the category's recommendation questions name or cite them, across three model APIs.

See how often AI names you.

Enter your website. In about two minutes, Rank.ai asks ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini 12 questions your customers ask and grades how often they name you.

  • Your grade out of 100How often AI names you, cites your site, and how high it ranks you.
  • Who gets namedEvery competitor in the answers, most named first.
  • The pages AI readsThe sources behind each answer.
  • Three fixesWhat to fix first, with a brief for the first article.