Harvey vs Ironclad
A side-by-side comparison of Harvey and Ironclad, two Legal tools, drawn from Ignaite's continuously-verified listings.
Compared from listings verified as of
Ironclad
LegalAI-native contract lifecycle management used by legal teams at OpenAI, L'Oréal, and the AP.
View IroncladAt a glance
| Attribute | Harvey | Ironclad |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Legal | Legal |
| Pricing | PAID | PAID |
| License | Proprietary | Proprietary |
| Deployment | Cloud | Cloud |
| Platforms | Web | Web |
| Model support | Multi-model | Multi-model |
| Vendor (differs) | Harvey AI | Ironclad |
| Capabilities (differs) |
|
|
The honest brief
Harvey
The default general-purpose legal AI at scale: Vault analyzes up to ~100K-doc collections, used across AmLaw 100 firms.
- Adopted by most AmLaw 100 firms
- Bulk doc analysis via Vault
- Grounds answers in firm's own materials
- Operates across 60 countries
- No public pricing, sales-only
- ~$1,000+/lawyer/mo, 20-seat minimum
- Tuned to big-firm billable workflows
- Heavy enterprise onboarding
Ironclad
Deeper lifecycle coverage than point review tools — Jurist redlines against your playbooks inside the same platform that runs intake, workflow, and storage.
- Full CLM, not just review
- Jurist agentic redlining
- Strong enterprise customer base
- No-code workflow designer
- Enterprise pricing ($30K+/year)
- No published list pricing
- Implementation takes weeks
When to pick which
Both cover Chat with documents, Contract review, and Contract drafting.
Pick Harvey if you need Legal research.
- Legal research (primary capability)
Pick Ironclad if you need Trigger-action automation and Contract lifecycle (CLM).
- Trigger-action automation (secondary capability)
- Contract lifecycle (CLM) (primary capability)