AI Judge vs Harvey

Two fact sheets from our own research, side by side — pricing, platforms, API access and status re-checked by us rather than quoted from the vendors.

The short answer

Free plan: AI Judge is free to use; Harvey prices on request
Higher Trust score: Harvey — 90 vs 69 for AI Judge
Best fit: AI Judge: Settling low-stakes personal or informal disputes · Harvey: AmLaw-scale firms rolling out one platform firmwide with EU or Australian data residency
Status: Both up at our last check (Sep 6, 2026)

From our own records as of each tool's last check. Anything we have not confirmed is left out rather than guessed. How we verify

AI JudgeFree web form that takes both sides of a dispute and returns a written mock verdict.

HarveyLegal work platform for firms and in-house teams

Side by side

Fact	AI Judge	Harvey
Category	Legal & LegalTech	Legal Research
Pricing model	Free	Contact
Trust score	69 / 100	90 / 100
Platforms	Web	Web
Company	—	Harvey AI Corporation
Last verified	Sep 6, 2026	Sep 6, 2026

What our research says

AI Judge

A free curiosity: type both sides of an argument, pick a jurisdiction, get a written opinion. Useful for a second perspective on a roommate or freelance-invoice disagreement, and nothing more - there is no firm, no bar admission and no named operator behind it. The jurisdiction picker suggests more legal grounding than a language model can actually deliver.

Pros

Fully free with no account, card or sign-up wall
Supports multiple parties, not just two, with an add-contender control
Jurisdiction, dispute type, formality, length and mediation mode are all configurable
Mediation mode reframes the output toward reconciliation instead of a winner

Cons

No company, contact address or country disclosed anywhere on the site
Output has zero legal standing and no lawyer reviews it
Jurisdiction selection implies statute-level grounding that is not evidenced

Harvey

Harvey is the enterprise choice for large firms and legal departments that want one vendor to cover research, review, drafting and now intake and regulatory tracking, with the security paperwork and regional hosting those buyers require. It is not something a solo practitioner or a small firm can sign up for, and the lack of any public price means the comparison with CoCounsel or Legora happens in a sales cycle, not on a pricing page.

Pros

Covers the whole legal workflow, from intake to agents to document vaults, rather than one point task
Regional instances for the US, EU and Australia address data-residency objections up front
Cited answers tied back to source documents and legal content, which is the minimum for legal use
Well capitalised: $550M raised at a $15.5B valuation in September 2026, so vendor risk is low

Cons

No public pricing, trial or self-serve sign-up; every evaluation runs through sales
Built for enterprise procurement, so mid-size and small firms pay for scale they do not use
No public API or developer surface found, so it does not slot into a custom stack
Rapid module expansion means parts of the platform are months old and lightly proven

Which one fits

Choose AI Judge if you need

Settling low-stakes personal or informal disputes
Getting a structured second read on an argument you are too close to
Seeing how a neutral summary of both positions might read

Choose Harvey if you need

AmLaw-scale firms rolling out one platform firmwide with EU or Australian data residency
In-house legal teams that want intake, contract review and horizon scanning in the same system
Legal organisations already standardised on Microsoft tooling, given the vendor's expanding collaboration there