Skip to content
effecthub

Harvey vs Rogo

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 · Rogo: Investment banks and advisory firms that want comps, precedents and model reviews run across their own deal archive
Trust score
About even — Harvey 90, Rogo 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

FactHarveyRogo
CategoryLegal ResearchInvesting & Market Analysis
Pricing modelContactContact
Trust score90 / 10090 / 100
PlatformsWebWeb
CompanyHarvey AI CorporationRogo Technologies, Inc.
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

Rogo

Rogo is a firm-level purchase for banks and investment teams that want agents running inside their deal data, not a tool an analyst expenses: value depends on connecting DealCloud, SharePoint and FactSet, and the forward-deployed bankers exist because that integration is the work. Its named customers and the $160 million Series D suggest it will be around, but there is no price, trial or self-serve path, and the output still needs a banker checking every number before it reaches a client.

Pros

  • Agents run multi-step banking workflows such as LBO review, comps refresh and precedent search rather than single answers
  • Connects to OneDrive, SharePoint, Salesforce, DealCloud, FactSet and PitchBook, with a firmwide memory of people, companies and deals
  • SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, ISO 42001 and a public trust center
  • Named customers in banking and research, 450-plus institutions claimed, and a $160 million Series D

Cons

  • Quote-only with no public pricing or trial
  • Needs licensed market data and integration work before the agents are useful
  • Usage figures (60,000 bankers, 200,000 daily queries) are self-reported
  • No founders, founding year or office list on the company page; the entity and address surface only in the terms

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 Rogo if you need

  • Investment banks and advisory firms that want comps, precedents and model reviews run across their own deal archive
  • Equity research teams with licensed FactSet and PitchBook data to ground the agents
  • Firms that need SOC 2, ISO 27001 and ISO 42001 attestations to clear compliance

All Rogo alternatives →Browse all Legal Research →