Softwr

Legal · head to head

Aderant vs Litify

Aderant logo

Aderant

Legal

Practice and financial management for large law firms

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite
Litify logo

Litify

Legal

Legal case and matter management built natively on Salesforce

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

The short version

  • Each has a real cost: Aderant implementation is a programme of work with consultants and data migration, so the licence fee is a minority of the real first year cost.; Litify pricing is not published anywhere and there is no entry tier, so a firm cannot judge affordability without entering a sales process.
  • They diverge on capability: Aderant covers Aderant Expert, Litify covers Native Salesforce application.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Aderant and Litify actually diverge.

Attributes where Aderant and Litify differ
AttributeAderantLitify
PlatformsWindows, Web, iOS, AndroidWeb, iOS, Android

Identical on both: starting price (On request), pricing model (quote), free tier (No), user rating (Not yet rated), category (Legal).

What each one covers

Drawn from each product's published feature list. An absence here means we hold no record of it - not that the product lacks it.

Only in Aderant

  • Aderant Expert
  • Conflicts and new business intake
  • Docketing and calendaring
  • Multi-currency and multi-entity billing
  • Business intelligence

Only in Litify

  • Native Salesforce application
  • Intake and referral management
  • Matter management
  • Reporting and dashboards
  • Mass tort handling

What people use each for

The jobs each tool is most often brought in to do.

Aderant

  • Firms of a hundred or more fee earners needing matter financials across multiple offices and currenciesnot Litify
  • Practices replacing an ageing time and billing system without leaving the large firm segmentnot Litify
  • Firms needing conflicts checking and new business intake governed by an approval workflownot Litify
  • Partnerships reporting profitability by practice group and requiring realisation analysisnot Litify

Litify

  • High volume plaintiff firms running mass tort matters with thousands of claimantsnot Aderant
  • Insurance defence operations needing matter management across many concurrent filesnot Aderant
  • Corporate legal departments needing matter intake and outside counsel spend reportingnot Aderant
  • Multi-office practices needing referral tracking and consistent intake across locationsnot Aderant

Where each one falls short

Documented limitations, not opinions. Every one is a constraint you would hit in normal use.

Aderant

  • Implementation is a programme of work with consultants and data migration, so the licence fee is a minority of the real first year cost.
  • It is designed for large firms, so a practice below roughly fifty fee earners pays for governance and reporting depth it will never use.
  • Ownership by an acquisitive holding company tends to mean predictable maintenance uplifts at renewal rather than competitive discounting.
  • The credible alternative set is effectively one other product, which weakens a firm's negotiating position because switching is genuinely expensive.
  • Nothing about pricing is published, so budgeting requires a sales engagement and useful comparisons come only from peer firms.

Litify

  • Pricing is not published anywhere and there is no entry tier, so a firm cannot judge affordability without entering a sales process.
  • The system being administered is Salesforce, so realising the configurability requires Salesforce administration skills most firms must hire or contract for.
  • Implementation is a configuration project measured in months, so it is not a system a firm can adopt quickly during a busy period.
  • That configurability means two Litify firms can run materially different systems, which makes external support and staff mobility harder.
  • There is no public documentation; the support site is behind a customer login, so buyers cannot assess the product depth before committing.

Pricing, plan by plan

Aderant

On request
  • Aderant Expert$undefined/year
    • Enterprise licensing quoted per firm
    • Implementation, migration and consultancy quoted separately
    • Annual maintenance and support

Litify

On request
  • Litify$undefined/year
    • Quoted per customer with no published rates
    • Sold as a bundled subscription including the Salesforce platform entitlement
    • Implementation and configuration quoted separately

Which should you pick?

Choose Aderant if

  • You need aderant expert.
  • You work on Windows, Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want conflicts and new business intake.
Aderant review

Choose Litify if

  • You need native salesforce application.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want intake and referral management.
Litify review

Questions people ask

Is Aderant or Litify better?
Neither clearly leads. Aderant starts at On request and Litify at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Aderant or Litify?
Aderant starts at On request and Litify at On request.
Does Aderant or Litify run on more platforms?
Aderant runs on Windows, Web, iOS, Android. Litify runs on Web, iOS, Android.
What is Aderant best used for?
Aderant is most often used for firms of a hundred or more fee earners needing matter financials across multiple offices and currencies, practices replacing an ageing time and billing system without leaving the large firm segment, firms needing conflicts checking and new business intake governed by an approval workflow, partnerships reporting profitability by practice group and requiring realisation analysis. Of those, firms of a hundred or more fee earners needing matter financials across multiple offices and currencies and practices replacing an ageing time and billing system without leaving the large firm segment are not what Litify is typically brought in for.
What can Aderant do that Litify cannot?
Aderant covers Aderant Expert, Conflicts and new business intake, Docketing and calendaring, Multi-currency and multi-entity billing. Litify covers Native Salesforce application, Intake and referral management, Matter management, Reporting and dashboards.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Aderant: Who owns Aderant?

Roper Technologies acquired Aderant in 2015. Roper buys and holds vertical market software businesses, which in practice means long product support and steady renewal pricing rather than rapid change.

Litify: Do we sign a separate contract with Salesforce?

Not according to Litify's published services agreement, which defines Litify as a reseller of the Salesforce services and defines the purchase as a combined offering of the platform plus the Litify application. You buy one subscription from Litify. Confirm how the platform appears on your own order form before signing.

Aderant: What size of firm is Aderant for?

Large firms, broadly a hundred fee earners and above. Smaller practices are better served by Clio, Tabs3 or Smokeball.

Litify: Is Litify for personal injury or corporate work?

Both, but differently. Plaintiff firms use it for high volume personal injury and mass tort, insurance defence firms for case volume, and corporate legal departments for matter intake and spend management rather than billing.

Aderant: What does it compete with?

Thomson Reuters Elite 3E is the main alternative at this size, and most large firm selections come down to those two.

Litify: Is it suitable for a small firm?

No. It is sold to mid-market and enterprise operations and no entry tier is marketed. The implementation and administration requirements do not amortise at small headcounts.

Share

Related pages

More on Aderant

More on Litify

Keep looking

Other head to heads