Skip to content
effecthub

CoCounsel 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

Best fit
CoCounsel: Law firms and legal departments with Westlaw or Practical Law subscriptions · Harvey: AmLaw-scale firms rolling out one platform firmwide with EU or Australian data residency
Trust score
About even — CoCounsel 88, Harvey 90
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

CoCounselLegal assistant grounded in Thomson Reuters contentHarveyLegal work platform for firms and in-house teams

Side by side

FactCoCounselHarvey
CategoryLegal ResearchLegal Research
Pricing modelContactContact
Trust score88 / 10090 / 100
PlatformsWebWeb
CompanyThomson ReutersHarvey AI Corporation
Last verifiedSep 6, 2026Sep 6, 2026

What our research says

CoCounsel

CoCounsel is the safe choice for a firm already paying Thomson Reuters: research answers come with Westlaw citations, review tables trace every cell to a source, and it lives inside Word and the document-management systems lawyers already use. It is not a product you can try or price from the website — every number comes from a sales call — and the moat is the content licence, so a firm on Lexis gets far less from it.

Pros

  • Research grounded in Westlaw and Practical Law content with linked citations
  • Tabular document review scales to 10,000 documents against 100 questions
  • Works inside Word, Outlook and Teams and connects to iManage, NetDocuments and SharePoint
  • SOC 2 and ISO 42001 certifications and a stated no-training-on-customer-data policy

Cons

  • No public pricing and no free trial on the product pages
  • Value depends on an existing Thomson Reuters content subscription
  • Reported outcome figures come from a vendor-commissioned Forrester study

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 CoCounsel if you need

  • Law firms and legal departments with Westlaw or Practical Law subscriptions
  • Litigation and transactional teams reviewing large document sets against fixed questions
  • Tax and accounting practices on Checkpoint content

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

More comparisons

All CoCounsel alternatives →Browse all Legal Research →