Legora vs Harvey: The 2026 Comparison for Law Firms

Last updated: 5 November 2026. This comparison uses Harvey’s and Legora’s own announcements and product pages, LawSites, TechCrunch, Legal Cheek, Artificial Lawyer and the Vals Legal AI Report. Customer, revenue and security figures are the companies’ own claims unless we say otherwise. Neither company publishes prices.

Short answer: In the Legora vs Harvey race, Harvey is the larger company, valued at $15.5 billion in September 2026 against Legora’s $8.8 billion in October, with more than $400 million in recurring revenue against more than $200 million. On features they now look very alike. Neither publishes prices, and no independent head-to-head test exists, so firms should pilot both on real work.

Key takeaways

• Harvey raised $550 million at $15.5 billion on 9 September 2026. Legora raised $550 million at $8.8 billion post-money on 21 October 2026.
• Harvey claims 80 or more Am Law 100 firms as users. Legora claims more than half of the Am Law 50. Hogan Lovells Cadwalader has chosen both.
• Neither company publishes a price list. Legora moved its Agent Pro product to usage-based pricing in June 2026, without publishing rates.
• Harvey holds the LexisNexis alliance and, of the two, the only independent benchmark result, from February 2025. Legora has moved quickly in in-house teams and US firms, including Jones Day.

How do Legora and Harvey compare at a glance?

Harvey began in 2022 and is based in San Francisco. Legora was founded in Sweden in 2023 and launched its platform in October 2024. Our earlier guide to Harvey AI covers its background in more depth.

Those claims are not like for like. The Am Law 100 and Am Law 50 are different groups, and “customer” can mean a pilot team or a whole firm. Harvey’s own funding post gives the $15.5 billion figure, although The Next Web reported $15.6 billion. Its recurring revenue number comes from co-founder Winston Weinberg, as reported by LawSites. Legora’s figures are in its Series E announcement.

How have their valuations and funding grown?

Both have raised at a pace rarely seen in legal software, and we looked at the wider picture in what legal AI funding means for buyers.

The valuation gap looks wide, but the revenue multiples are close. On the stated minimums, Harvey is valued at about 39 times recurring revenue and Legora at about 44 times (our calculation). Legora is growing faster from a smaller base: it says it took under 18 months to go from $1 million to $100 million, then under six months to add the next $100 million. Investors have priced both on future growth, which is one reason buyers should not treat a valuation as a measure of product quality.

What do Legora and Harvey actually do?

Both started with lawyers in mind and have ended up with very similar platforms. Here is how the main pieces line up, using each company’s own product names.

Three real differences remain. Harvey’s alliance with LexisNexis gives it a route to one of the two main US legal libraries, and Artificial Lawyer described it in 2025 as the first such access for a generative AI platform. Harvey is also buying teams: Artificial Lawyer counted its purchase of Aida as its fifth acquisition of 2026. Legora’s Portal lets clients run a firm’s branded workflows without seeing the prompts behind them, and no guest licence is needed.

The two also arrive at the same market at the same moment. Both launched an in-house Intake tool within about a day of each other in October 2026, and both have agreed to act as plugins in Microsoft’s Copilot for Legal, launched on 15 October. That matters because the bigger threat to each may no longer be the other. Artificial Lawyer notes that Google, ChatGPT, Anthropic and Microsoft have all moved into legal tech. Our note on the Model Context Protocol explains how these tools are starting to connect.

How much do Legora and Harvey cost?

We cannot give you a reliable number, and you should be wary of any article that does. Harvey’s site has no pricing page, only a request for a demo. Legora’s has no list price either.

What is public is this. On 23 June 2026, Legora introduced consumption-based pricing for Agent Pro, so firms pay for the work the agent does. The standard Legora Agent stays at no extra cost and existing contract terms do not change. Administrators get spending limits and a live dashboard by user or project. The post lists no rates.

For Harvey, the figures in circulation disagree badly. Artificial Lawyer’s June 2025 piece cited “street chatter” of about $1,200 a seat a year. Sacra estimates about $1,200 per lawyer per month, with a 12-month commitment and a minimum of about 20 seats. That is a twelvefold gap. Harvey told Artificial Lawyer that the piece’s cost assumptions were “wildly off” and that it had no such seat requirement, but it did not give a price. We could not trace the per-seat numbers for Legora on comparison sites to the company or a named buyer, so we leave them out.

Budget from a written quote that separates seats, usage, implementation and any research content. Our guide to what legal AI actually costs lists the line items to ask about.

Which law firms use Legora and which use Harvey?

The customer lists overlap more than either company’s marketing suggests.

• Harvey names A&O Shearman, Reed Smith, Macfarlanes, O’Melveny, Orrick and CMS among others, and Legal Cheek reports Slaughter and May has chosen it. In-house users named on its site include Comcast, Bayer and Procter & Gamble.
• Legora names White & Case, Cleary Gottlieb, Goodwin, Bird & Bird and Linklaters, which rolled it out across 30 offices in September 2025. On 22 October 2026 Jones Day said its more than 2,500 lawyers would get access in the coming months.
• Both. Legal Cheek reported in October 2026 that Hogan Lovells Cadwalader partnered with both, saying no single AI product can meet a global firm’s needs. Dentons also appears in both companies’ customer material.

Legora’s growth in house is the newest shift. It says in-house teams were more than 40% of its new customers in the third quarter of 2026, up from a small fraction a year earlier. Harvey says its customers include five of the Fortune 10.

Is there independent evidence of which is better?

Very little. The best-known public test is the Vals Legal AI Report of February 2025. Harvey took part in six of seven tasks and Vals called its Assistant the strongest performer in that study. Legora was not included, so the report says nothing about how the two compare, and it is now well out of date. Harvey LAB, the Legal Agent Benchmark, was built by Harvey, so it is not an independent test. We found no independent head-to-head comparison.

The same applies to security claims. Harvey lists SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, 27701 and 42001. Legora lists SOC 2 Type II and ISO 27001 and says customer data is not used for AI training. These are company statements, so ask for the reports and read the data processing terms.

How should a law firm choose between them?

Size and existing tools should drive the decision more than brand. These are our suggestions, not findings from any study:

• Heavy US research work: test Harvey’s Lexis route against whatever research product you already pay for, and check what it adds to the cost.
• Client-facing collaboration: compare Spaces and Portal on your own matter, and include a real client in the trial.
• Budget control: ask how each vendor charges for agent work. Usage pricing can suit uneven demand, but it makes the annual bill harder to predict.
• Smaller firms: ask both vendors about minimum seats before you start. Our guide to AI for lawyers covers the wider field.
• Large firms: Hogan Lovells Cadwalader’s approach shows that using both is an option, if the budget and training time allow it.

Whichever you pick, the professional duties stay with the lawyer. ABA Formal Opinion 512 sets out the duties on competence, confidentiality and fees in the US, and our table of AI hallucination sanctions shows what happens when no one checks the output. The full market is in our directory of legal AI software.

Frequently asked questions

Is Legora better than Harvey?

There is no public evidence that settles it. The two offer very similar features, and we found no independent test that compares them directly. Harvey is larger and has the LexisNexis alliance. Legora is growing faster from a smaller base. The right answer depends on your work, so run both on real matters before you decide.

What is Harvey’s valuation in 2026?

$15.5 billion, according to Harvey’s announcement of a $550 million round on 9 September 2026, co-led by Diffusion and Lightspeed. The Next Web reported $15.6 billion. In March 2026 Harvey was valued at $11 billion.

What is Legora’s valuation in 2026?

$8.8 billion post-money, after a $550 million Series E announced on 21 October 2026 and led by Atreides Management. That compares with $5.6 billion in April 2026 and $1.8 billion in October 2025. Legora also said annual recurring revenue had passed $200 million.

How much does Harvey cost per lawyer?

Harvey does not publish prices. Reported figures conflict: one cited about $1,200 a seat a year, while Sacra estimates about $1,200 per lawyer per month. Harvey disputed the assumptions in the first report without giving a figure. Treat both as unconfirmed and ask for a written quote.

Does Legora have public pricing?

No. Legora has no published list price. Since June 2026 its Agent Pro product has used consumption-based pricing with spending controls, and the standard Legora Agent carries no extra charge, but the rates themselves are not public. You need a quote from the company.

Can a law firm use both Legora and Harvey?

Yes. Hogan Lovells Cadwalader said in October 2026 that it would use both, arguing that no single AI product meets all the needs of a global firm. Many firms have picked one, and paying for two means more licences, training and governance.

This article is general information as of 5 November 2026. It is not legal, procurement or investment advice. Company figures are self-reported and these products change quickly, so confirm current features and terms with each vendor.