Softwr

Legal · head to head

CosmoLex vs Litify

CosmoLex logo

CosmoLex

Legal

Practice management with a full legal general ledger and trust accounting built in

From
$89/month
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: CosmoLex the built-in accounting suits a single law firm entity, so practices with multiple entities, payroll or unusual revenue recognition still need an external accountant and a second system.; 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: CosmoLex covers Built-in general ledger, Litify covers Native Salesforce application.
  • Prices and features above were last checked on 31 August 2026.

Where they differ

Only the attributes on which CosmoLex and Litify actually diverge.

Attributes where CosmoLex and Litify differ
AttributeCosmoLexLitify
Starting price$89/monthOn request
Pricing modelPer user per monthquote

Identical on both: free tier (No), platforms (Web, iOS, Android), 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 CosmoLex

  • Built-in general ledger
  • Three-way trust reconciliation
  • Time and expense capture
  • Billing and LEDES
  • CosmoLex Pay

Only in Litify

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

Both cover

  • Matter management

What people use each for

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

CosmoLex

  • A two to ten lawyer firm that wants to stop paying for and reconciling QuickBooks alongside its practice systemnot Litify
  • A firm that has failed or fears failing a bar trust account audit and needs three-way reconciliation as standardnot Litify
  • A solo practice with no bookkeeper that needs the books to be correct without accounting knowledgenot Litify
  • A firm doing insurer defence work that must produce LEDES invoices without a separate billing toolnot Litify

Litify

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

Where each one falls short

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

CosmoLex

  • The built-in accounting suits a single law firm entity, so practices with multiple entities, payroll or unusual revenue recognition still need an external accountant and a second system.
  • Document management is basic storage rather than versioned matter-centric DMS, so firms with heavy document workflow outgrow it and bolt on something else.
  • The integration catalogue is materially smaller than Clio, so niche intake, e-discovery or automation tools often require manual export instead of a native connection.
  • Ownership sits with ProfitSolv alongside Tabs3, TimeSolv and Rocket Matter, and buyers have limited visibility into which brand receives investment over a three-year contract.
  • The interface and reporting feel dated next to newer competitors, and custom reporting in particular often means exporting to a spreadsheet.

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

CosmoLex

$89/month
  • CosmoLex$89/month
    • Per user per month billed annually, higher month to month
    • General ledger and trust accounting included rather than sold as an add-on
    • Payment processing charged at card and bank transaction rates

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 CosmoLex if

  • You need built-in general ledger.
  • You work on Web, iOS, Android.
  • You also want three-way trust reconciliation.
CosmoLex 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 CosmoLex or Litify better?
Neither clearly leads. CosmoLex starts at $89/month and Litify at On request, and user ratings are close enough to be indistinguishable. Choose on capability and platform support.
Which is cheaper, CosmoLex or Litify?
CosmoLex starts at $89/month and Litify at On request.
Does CosmoLex or Litify run on more platforms?
Both run on Web, iOS, Android, so platform support will not decide this one for you.
What is CosmoLex best used for?
CosmoLex is most often used for a two to ten lawyer firm that wants to stop paying for and reconciling quickbooks alongside its practice system, a firm that has failed or fears failing a bar trust account audit and needs three-way reconciliation as standard, a solo practice with no bookkeeper that needs the books to be correct without accounting knowledge, a firm doing insurer defence work that must produce ledes invoices without a separate billing tool. Of those, a two to ten lawyer firm that wants to stop paying for and reconciling quickbooks alongside its practice system and a firm that has failed or fears failing a bar trust account audit and needs three-way reconciliation as standard are not what Litify is typically brought in for.
What can CosmoLex do that Litify cannot?
CosmoLex covers Built-in general ledger, Three-way trust reconciliation, Time and expense capture, Billing and LEDES. Litify covers Native Salesforce application, Intake and referral management, Reporting and dashboards, Mass tort handling. Both handle Matter management.

Answered from the vendors’ own pages

CosmoLex: Do I still need QuickBooks?

No. CosmoLex carries its own general ledger and trust ledgers, which is the main reason firms choose it over Clio or MyCase.

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.

CosmoLex: Does it handle IOLTA compliance?

Yes. Trust ledgers, overdraft prevention and three-way reconciliation are in the core product rather than in a paid tier.

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.

CosmoLex: Who owns CosmoLex?

ProfitSolv, a private-equity backed group that also owns Tabs3, TimeSolv, ImagineTime and Rocket Matter.

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 CosmoLex

More on Litify

Keep looking

Other head to heads