Softwr

Legal · head to head

Harvey vs iManage

Harvey logo

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 reviewWebsite
iManage logo

iManage

Legal

Document and email management for law firms and professional services

From
On request
Rated
-
Full reviewWebsite

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.; iManage it manages documents and email but not matters, billing or accounting, so it is an addition to a practice management system rather than a replacement for one.
  • They diverge on capability: Harvey covers Legal research assistant, iManage covers iManage Work.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Harvey and iManage actually diverge.

Attributes where Harvey and iManage differ
AttributeHarveyiManage
PlatformsWebWindows, Web, macOS, 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 iManage

  • iManage Work
  • Outlook email filing
  • Security Policy Manager
  • Records Manager
  • Full text and metadata search

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 iManage
  • A large corporate legal department needing firm-tuned drafting on its own precedent librarynot iManage
  • A litigation practice wanting AI research assistance integrated directly with its document management systemnot iManage
  • A firm large enough to absorb a 25-seat minimum and enterprise contract cost, evaluating AI tools at BigLaw scalenot iManage

iManage

  • Corporate firms whose matter record lives largely in email and must be filed and searchablenot Harvey
  • Firms with client confidentiality obligations requiring need-to-know access per matternot Harvey
  • Practices with records retention obligations spanning electronic and physical filesnot Harvey
  • Financial services, accounting and government teams with the same matter-centric document problemnot 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.

iManage

  • It manages documents and email but not matters, billing or accounting, so it is an addition to a practice management system rather than a replacement for one.
  • Administration requires specialist skills, and organisations without a dedicated document management administrator tend to run it badly configured.
  • Its value depends on fee earners filing email consistently, which is a behaviour change firms routinely fail to enforce.
  • Nothing about pricing is published and the surrounding modules are licensed separately, so the gap between the core product and a working configuration is discovered late.
  • The market-share figures it cites, such as 81 per cent of the Am Law 200, are vendor published and not independently audited.

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

iManage

On request
  • iManage Work$undefined/year
    • Per user licensing quoted per organisation
    • Cloud or on-premises deployment
    • Security, records and analytics modules licensed separately

Which should you pick?

Choose Harvey if

  • You need legal research assistant.
  • You also want contract analysis.
Harvey review

Choose iManage if

  • You need imanage work.
  • You work on Windows, Web, macOS, iOS, Android.
  • You also want outlook email filing.
iManage review

Questions people ask

Is Harvey or iManage better?
Neither clearly leads. Harvey starts at On request and iManage at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Harvey or iManage?
Harvey starts at On request and iManage at On request.
Does Harvey or iManage run on more platforms?
Harvey runs on Web. iManage runs on Windows, Web, macOS, 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 iManage is typically brought in for.
What can Harvey do that iManage cannot?
Harvey covers Legal research assistant, Contract analysis, Document drafting, Workflow-specific tools. iManage covers iManage Work, Outlook email filing, Security Policy Manager, Records Manager.

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.

iManage: Does iManage replace practice management software?

No. It handles documents and email. Firms run it alongside a practice management and billing system such as Aderant or Elite 3E.

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.

iManage: Who owns iManage?

It has been independent since a management buyout from Hewlett-Packard completed in July 2015. Bain Capital Tech Opportunities made a minority growth investment in April 2023, with management retaining control.

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.

iManage: Is iManage worth it for a small firm?

It is sold to small firms as well as large ones, but the licensing and administrative overhead usually outweighs the benefit over a well organised document store below roughly twenty fee earners.

Share

Related pages

More on Harvey

More on iManage

Keep looking

Other head to heads