Is Harvey or Litify better?

Neither clearly leads. Harvey 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, Harvey or Litify?

Harvey starts at On request and Litify at On request.

Does Harvey or Litify run on more platforms?

Harvey runs on Web. Litify runs on Web, iOS, Android.

What is Harvey best used for?

Harvey is most often used for an amlaw 100 or 200 firm wanting ai-assisted due diligence review across large contract sets, a large corporate legal department needing firm-tuned drafting on its own precedent library, a litigation practice wanting ai research assistance integrated directly with its document management system, a firm large enough to absorb a 25-seat minimum and enterprise contract cost, evaluating ai tools at biglaw scale. Of those, an amlaw 100 or 200 firm wanting ai-assisted due diligence review across large contract sets and a large corporate legal department needing firm-tuned drafting on its own precedent library are not what Litify is typically brought in for.

What can Harvey do that Litify cannot?

Harvey covers Legal research assistant, Contract analysis, Document drafting, Workflow-specific tools. Litify covers Native Salesforce application, Intake and referral management, Matter management, Reporting and dashboards.

Legal · head to head

Harvey vs Litify

Harvey

Legal

AI research and drafting platform for large law firms, sold on enterprise-only seat pricing with no self-service tier and reported contracts from roughly $50,000 to $360,000 a year

From: On request
Rated: -

Full review Website

Litify

Legal

Legal case and matter management built natively on Salesforce

From: On request
Rated: -

Full review Website

The short version

Each has a real cost: Harvey there is no published pricing anywhere, and no self-service tier at all, so even qualifying for a quote requires an enterprise sales process most small and mid-size firms cannot justify starting.; 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: Harvey covers Legal research assistant, Litify covers Native Salesforce application.
Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Harvey and Litify actually diverge.

Attributes where Harvey and Litify differ
Attribute	Harvey	Litify
Platforms	Web	Web, 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 Harvey

Legal research assistant
Contract analysis
Document drafting
Workflow-specific tools
DMS integration
Firm-tuned deployment

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.

Harvey

An AmLaw 100 or 200 firm wanting AI-assisted due diligence review across large contract setsnot Litify
A large corporate legal department needing firm-tuned drafting on its own precedent librarynot Litify
A litigation practice wanting AI research assistance integrated directly with its document management systemnot Litify
A firm large enough to absorb a 25-seat minimum and enterprise contract cost, evaluating AI tools at BigLaw scalenot Litify

Litify

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

Where each one falls short

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

Harvey

There is no published pricing anywhere, and no self-service tier at all, so even qualifying for a quote requires an enterprise sales process most small and mid-size firms cannot justify starting.
25-seat minimums put it structurally out of reach for solo, boutique and most mid-size firms regardless of interest.
Reported additional platform fees on top of the headline per-seat licence mean the effective total cost is materially higher than the quoted seat price alone suggests.
As a well-funded, fast-growing AI vendor, its product and pricing model are still evolving quickly, which is a real risk for a firm signing a multi-year enterprise contract now.
Being trained and marketed specifically for BigLaw workflows means smaller firms evaluating it are comparing themselves against a product that was not built or priced with them in mind.

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

Harvey

On request

Enterprise (BigLaw)$undefined/year
- No self-service signup, quote-only via sales
- 25-seat minimums commonly reported
- Reported per-seat cost roughly $1,000-2,000/month depending on usage tier

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 Harvey if

You need legal research assistant.
You also want contract analysis.

Harvey 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 Harvey or Litify better?: Neither clearly leads. Harvey 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, Harvey or Litify?: Harvey starts at On request and Litify at On request.
Does Harvey or Litify run on more platforms?: Harvey runs on Web. Litify runs on Web, iOS, Android.
What is Harvey best used for?: Harvey is most often used for an amlaw 100 or 200 firm wanting ai-assisted due diligence review across large contract sets, a large corporate legal department needing firm-tuned drafting on its own precedent library, a litigation practice wanting ai research assistance integrated directly with its document management system, a firm large enough to absorb a 25-seat minimum and enterprise contract cost, evaluating ai tools at biglaw scale. Of those, an amlaw 100 or 200 firm wanting ai-assisted due diligence review across large contract sets and a large corporate legal department needing firm-tuned drafting on its own precedent library are not what Litify is typically brought in for.
What can Harvey do that Litify cannot?: Harvey covers Legal research assistant, Contract analysis, Document drafting, Workflow-specific tools. Litify covers Native Salesforce application, Intake and referral management, Matter management, Reporting and dashboards.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Harvey: Can a small firm buy Harvey?

In practice, no. There is no self-service tier, and reported 25-seat minimums and six-figure contract values put it out of reach for most small and mid-size firms.

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.

Harvey: How much does Harvey actually cost?

Nothing is published. Third-party reporting estimates $1,000-2,000 per seat per month and enterprise contracts from roughly $360,000 to over $1.5 million a year including platform fees.

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.

Harvey: Does Harvey replace Westlaw or LexisNexis?

No. It is an AI research, drafting and review layer, typically deployed alongside rather than instead of a primary legal research database.

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.

Harvey vs Litify

Harvey

Litify

The short version

Where they differ

What each one covers

Only in Harvey

Only in Litify

What people use each for

Harvey

Litify

Where each one falls short

Harvey

Litify

Pricing, plan by plan

Harvey

Litify

Which should you pick?

Choose Harvey if

Choose Litify if

Questions people ask

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

Related pages

More on Harvey

More on Litify

Keep looking

Other head to heads