Harvey is built and priced for enterprise legal departments and large firms: quote-only pricing, a sales cycle and, in most reported deals, a seat minimum. LegalSoul is document review software a two-attorney firm can buy this afternoon. Pricing is published, the first review runs without an account, and there is no minimum seat count.
Harvey does not publish rates, so every Harvey figure on this page is labeled as a third-party estimate and linked to its source.
Start a review
Drop a document below. The first review runs without an account.
Contracts, briefs, leases and exhibits
One document per review, PDF, Word, images
First review runs without an account. Encrypted in transit, kept private to your account.
The best Harvey AI alternative for a small or midsize law firm is whichever tool sells the way you buy. Harvey is quote-only and enterprise-first. Reported figures run from about $333 per user per month (an indicative $40,000 a year for 10 users) to $1,000 to $2,000 or more with a seat minimum near 20, which puts it out of reach for most firms under twenty attorneys. LegalSoul covers the document review half of that workload for a published $99 per month, with no seat minimum and no sales call. Spellbook is the usual pick for contract drafting inside Word, CoCounsel for research anchored to Westlaw, and Clio Duo when you want AI inside the practice management system you already pay for.
Harvey wins on breadth, on enterprise identity controls and on integration with a large firm's document management system. LegalSoul wins on getting a small firm to a usable result today. Both statements are true at the same time, and which one matters depends entirely on the size of your firm.
| Buying criterion | Harvey | LegalSoul |
|---|---|---|
| Published price | No. Quote only, after a sales conversation. | Yes. $99, $299 and $1,749 per month, listed on the pricing page. |
| Reported cost | Not published. Reported from about $333 per user per month (indicative, 10 users, Spellbook 2026) to $1,000 to $2,000+ with a seat minimum near 20 (2026 buying guides). LexisNexis add-on reported at $400 to $600 per lawyer per year (Artificial Lawyer, 2025). | $99/month for 100 reviews. $299/month for 500. $1,749/month unmetered. |
| Seat minimum | Reported multi-seat minimums and annual commitments. | None. One attorney can buy one seat. |
| Time to first output | Sales call, security review, procurement, then onboarding. | Upload a document and read the review. No account needed for the first one. |
| Scope of work covered | Broader. Research, drafting, diligence workflows, a document vault, Word and Outlook add-ins, APIs. | Focused on document review and analysis: issues, risky clauses, missing terms, page cites. |
| Enterprise identity controls | Stronger. SAML SSO, audit logs and IP allow-listing are documented, with role-based access and workspace separation. | Email and password accounts. No SAML SSO today. |
| DMS integration | Stronger. Syncs iManage, SharePoint and Google Drive into governed workspaces. | Direct upload. No DMS connector. |
| Ethical walls | Stronger. Syncs and enforces the firm's existing wall policies. | Per-account separation. No firm-wide wall engine. |
| Certifications | Stronger. SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, ISO 27701 and ISO 42001, plus annual third-party penetration tests. | Encryption in transit and at rest, per-account isolation. No SOC 2 report to hand your client yet. |
| Data residency options | In-region processing offered for the EU and Switzerland, and for Australia. | United States. |
| Best fit | Am Law firms and in-house legal departments with a procurement function and a security team. | Solo practitioners and firms of roughly 2 to 50 attorneys who need document review without a procurement cycle. |
Harvey security and integration details are drawn from Harvey's own security page and trust center. Harvey cost figures are third-party estimates published by legal technology buying guides in 2026, because Harvey does not publish a rate card. Verify any number against a current quote before you sign.
None of these are complaints about Harvey's quality. They are structural mismatches between how Harvey sells and how a small firm buys software.
A managing partner deciding whether AI review is worth it needs a number before the third meeting. Quote-only pricing pushes that number behind a discovery call, a security questionnaire and a procurement thread. For a firm with no procurement function, that is the whole project.
A four-attorney firm buying against a reported multi-seat minimum pays for capacity it will never use. The economics only work once you have enough timekeepers to spread the license across, which is exactly the point at which you stop being a small firm.
Most firms that trial an enterprise legal AI platform end up using a fraction of it. If the actual need is "read this 90 page agreement and tell me what is wrong with it", a platform licence is an expensive way to buy one workflow.
Your duty of confidentiality does not move when the vendor does. These are the answers a client or a malpractice carrier will ask you for, and where each one is documented today.
| Control | Harvey (per its own published material) | What to require from any vendor |
|---|---|---|
| Model training on your data | States it does not use inputs, outputs or uploaded documents to train underlying models, and contractually requires zero data retention from model providers. | A written no-training clause covering inputs, outputs and uploads, not just "we value your privacy". |
| Subprocessor list | Published through the trust portal at trust.harvey.ai, gated behind an access request rather than posted openly. | The current list in writing, plus advance notice of changes, since every name on it is a party your client data can reach. |
| SAML single sign-on | Documented, alongside audit logs and IP allow-listing. | SSO if you already run an identity provider, so departures are handled in one place. |
| SCIM provisioning | Not stated in Harvey's public security material. Confirm in writing if automated deprovisioning matters to you. | Either SCIM, or a documented manual offboarding process you can actually run the day someone leaves. |
| Certifications | SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 renewed annually, plus ISO 27701 and ISO 42001, with annual third-party penetration tests. | A current report, not a badge on a website. Ask for the date and the auditor. |
| Data residency | Hosted on Microsoft Azure, with in-region processing options for the EU and Switzerland, and for Australia. | Named regions in the contract if a client or a regulator has told you where the data may sit. |
| Ethical walls | Syncs and enforces the firm's existing wall policies, and states it never creates, modifies or deletes walls itself. | Clarity on whether the tool enforces your walls or simply ignores them. |
We keep a longer version of this checklist in the Harvey AI security and subprocessor review, including what to do when a vendor's trust portal is gated and your client wants an answer this week. The other platform firms weigh against Harvey at this stage is Legora, which is reported at a lower seat price and half the seat minimum: we compare the two in Legora vs Harvey for small law firms. If you are a corporate legal department rather than a firm, the tool built only for in-house lawyers publishes a $500 seat price; see GC AI vs Harvey for in-house counsel.
A contract, a brief, a lease, a set of exhibits. PDF, Word or an image of a scanned page. One document per review. The first one runs without an account, so you can judge the output before you commit anything.
Issues, risky and one-sided clauses, terms that should be there and are not, and the page each finding came from, so you can check it against the document instead of trusting a summary.
Every finding cites its page for a reason: an AI review is a first pass by a very fast associate, not a substitute for your judgment. Export it, mark it up, send the redline.
You are the associate. A structured first pass on a 60 page agreement is the difference between taking the matter and passing on it.
Enough volume to feel the review burden, not enough seats to clear an enterprise minimum or absorb a six month procurement cycle.
A sole general counsel triaging vendor paper, NDAs and MSAs, who needs the risky clauses surfaced before the business asks why it is slow.
Run both. A trial that costs $99 and starts today is a cheap way to learn what you actually want from the enterprise quote.
If your firm runs an identity provider and needs SAML SSO with audit logs and IP allow-listing, if your matters live in iManage or NetDocuments and have to stay there, if your ethical walls need to be enforced by the tool rather than respected by convention, or if a client contract requires a current SOC 2 Type II report and EU data residency in writing, Harvey answers those requirements today and LegalSoul does not.
That is the honest boundary. Below roughly twenty attorneys, most firms hit none of those requirements and are paying enterprise prices for controls their practice does not use. Above it, the controls are the product.
Harvey does not publish pricing. Every deal goes through a sales conversation and a custom quote. Third-party estimates published in 2026 disagree by a factor of five. Spellbook calls about $40,000 a year for 10 users (roughly $333 per user per month) indicative, while other buying guides report $1,000 to $2,000 or more per user per month with a seat minimum near 20 and an annual commitment. A LexisNexis research add-on was reported at $400 to $600 per lawyer per year (Artificial Lawyer, June 2025), and Harvey told that publication the estimates were wildly off. Treat every figure as an estimate and get your own quote in writing. Every reported figure, with its source and what it works out to per lawyer, is in our Harvey AI pricing breakdown for small law firms.
Harvey sells to enterprise legal departments and large law firms. There is no self-serve signup, no published rate card and typically a seat minimum, so a solo practitioner or a three-attorney firm generally cannot buy it on its own terms. That structural mismatch, rather than product quality, is why small firms end up searching for an alternative.
It depends on the job you are buying for. For document review and analysis, LegalSoul starts at $99 per month with published pricing and no seat minimum. For contract drafting inside Microsoft Word, Spellbook is the usual pick. For research anchored to Westlaw, CoCounsel. For AI inside the practice management system you already pay for, Clio Duo. For plaintiff casework, the platforms are Eve and EvenUp, and our Eve Legal pricing breakdown shows how that kind of contract is billed. Buy the workflow, not the platform.
Spellbook, by a wide margin. Spellbook is reported at $89 to $199 per user per month on annual terms, offers law firms a 7-day trial, and can be bought for a handful of users. Harvey is commonly reported with a seat minimum near 20 and an indicative $40,000 a year for 10 users, so a small firm usually cannot buy it at all. The sourced figures are on our Spellbook pricing page. If the work is reviewing documents rather than drafting in Word, LegalSoul is $99 a month.
Yes. Harvey documents SAML SSO, audit logs and IP allow-listing as part of its enterprise controls, alongside role-based access and logical workspace separation. SCIM user provisioning is not stated in Harvey's public security material, so if automated deprovisioning is a hard requirement, confirm it with the vendor in writing rather than assuming it ships with SSO.
Harvey publishes its subprocessor list through its trust portal at trust.harvey.ai, which runs on SafeBase and gates the documents behind an access request. The list is not sitting on the open web, so build a request step and an NDA into your due diligence timeline instead of expecting to download it the afternoon your client asks.
The risk is not the switch, it is the terms. Privilege and confidentiality survive when the vendor is a service provider bound by confidentiality, does not train on your content and does not disclose it beyond named subprocessors. Get those three in the contract with any vendor, incumbent or replacement, and document the assessment.
Yes, and it is a sensible way to run a bake-off. Put the same agreement through both and compare what each one flags. A $99 month of parallel testing usually tells you more about which output your attorneys will actually act on than a scripted vendor demo does.
Upload an agreement you already know well and see whether the review catches what you would have caught. That is a better signal than any comparison table, including this one.
Sign up