Skip to content
effecthub

Harvey vs Robin AI

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
Harvey: AmLaw-scale firms rolling out one platform firmwide with EU or Australian data residency · Robin AI: In-house legal teams at mid-size and large companies reviewing high volumes of third-party paper
Trust score
About even — Harvey 90, Robin AI 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

Side by side

FactHarveyRobin AI
CategoryLegal ResearchContract Analysis & Review
Pricing modelContactContact
Trust score90 / 10090 / 100
PlatformsWebWeb
CompanyHarvey AI CorporationRobin AI Limited
Launched—2019
Last verifiedSep 6, 2026Sep 6, 2026

What our research says

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

Robin AI

Robin AI suits an in-house legal team that wants contract review and document Q&A from a vendor that employs lawyers and signs enterprise paper, with the London-New York-Singapore footprint to match. It is not a self-serve product: no price, no trial you can start alone, and the terms make clear that the output is software, not advice. Lawyers who draft in Word all day and want an add-in with a visible price will find Spellbook or Luminance easier to evaluate.

Pros

  • Contract review and analysis combined with chat over documents in shared, searchable threads
  • Workspaces hold documents, conversations and tasks for a whole legal team
  • Backed by Google, Temasek, PayPal and others, with offices on three continents
  • English-law terms from a registered UK company, straightforward for European procurement

Cons

  • No public pricing or self-serve trial; every evaluation goes through sales
  • No public API found and no Word add-in described on the current site
  • The terms are internally inconsistent in places (arbitration seat listed as London, 'England, United States')
  • Product positioning shifted to a 'Legal Intelligence Platform' in 2025, so older reviews describe a different product

Which one fits

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

Choose Robin AI if you need

  • In-house legal teams at mid-size and large companies reviewing high volumes of third-party paper
  • Companies that want contract analysis plus access to a vendor with its own legal professionals
  • Teams spread across the UK, US and Asia that want one workspace for documents and questions

All Robin AI alternatives →Browse all Legal Research →