Softwr

Legal · head to head

Harvey vs Intapp

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
Intapp logo

Intapp

Legal

Risk, compliance and business intake software for professional services firms

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.; Intapp the product set is modular, so the cost of a working risk and intake configuration is well above the entry module a firm first prices.
  • They diverge on capability: Harvey covers Legal research assistant, Intapp covers Conflicts and business intake.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 1 September 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which Harvey and Intapp actually diverge.

Attributes where Harvey and Intapp differ
AttributeHarveyIntapp
PlatformsWebWeb, Windows, 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 Intapp

  • Conflicts and business intake
  • Confidentiality walls
  • Time capture
  • DealCloud
  • Outside counsel guidelines compliance

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

Intapp

  • Large firms formalising conflicts clearance and matter opening approvalsnot Harvey
  • Practices that must demonstrate confidentiality walls rather than assert them as policynot Harvey
  • Firms losing revenue to outside counsel guideline breaches caught only after invoicingnot Harvey
  • Advisory and capital markets teams needing deal pipeline and relationship managementnot 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.

Intapp

  • The product set is modular, so the cost of a working risk and intake configuration is well above the entry module a firm first prices.
  • It assumes a firm large enough to have dedicated risk and compliance staff, and smaller practices have nobody to own the workflows it introduces.
  • It sits alongside document management and billing rather than replacing them, adding integration work to an already complex estate.
  • Pricing is not published, and the modular structure makes peer comparison harder because two firms rarely buy the same combination.
  • Deployments change firm-wide processes such as matter opening, so rollout depends on partner behaviour change and commonly slips.

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

Intapp

On request
  • Intapp$undefined/year
    • Modular licensing quoted per firm
    • Risk, intake, time and DealCloud modules priced separately
    • 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 Intapp if

  • You need conflicts and business intake.
  • You work on Web, Windows, iOS, Android.
  • You also want confidentiality walls.
Intapp review

Questions people ask

Is Harvey or Intapp better?
Neither clearly leads. Harvey starts at On request and Intapp at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, Harvey or Intapp?
Harvey starts at On request and Intapp at On request.
Does Harvey or Intapp run on more platforms?
Harvey runs on Web. Intapp runs on Web, Windows, 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 Intapp is typically brought in for.
What can Harvey do that Intapp cannot?
Harvey covers Legal research assistant, Contract analysis, Document drafting, Workflow-specific tools. Intapp covers Conflicts and business intake, Confidentiality walls, Time capture, DealCloud.

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.

Intapp: Is Intapp a practice management system?

No. It covers risk, compliance, intake and time capture. Firms run it alongside a billing and matter financial 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.

Intapp: Can we check Intapp's financial position before committing?

Yes, which is unusual in this market. Intapp has been listed on Nasdaq since 2021, so revenue and retention figures appear in public filings rather than only in sales material.

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.

Intapp: What size of firm is it for?

Large firms and advisory businesses with a formal risk function. Small practices handle conflicts inside their practice management system instead.

Share

Related pages

More on Harvey

More on Intapp

Keep looking

Other head to heads