Legora vs Harvey: Pricing, Seat Minimums and Which Legal AI to Buy in 2026

Harvey and Legora are the two best funded legal AI platforms in the world and they are now selling into the same US firms, which is why this comparison gets searched so often and answered so badly. Most of what ranks for it prints two seat prices side by side and calls one of them cheaper. Neither company has ever published a seat price. So this article does something different: it separates what each vendor has actually put in writing from what has been written about them, and then gives you a way to decide that does not depend on a number nobody can verify.

How much does Legora cost vs Harvey?

Both are quote only. We checked both pricing URLs on 10 September 2026 and both return a 404. Legora's is the more interesting 404, because the Wayback Machine has no capture of a Legora pricing page in the company's history: it was never removed, it never existed. Here is what a buyer can actually establish about each, with where it comes from.

The two estimates are not comparable even as estimates. One is a practitioner's guess at a starter price with a stated minimum, the other is an unattributed figure that happens to match, to the dollar, the $2,999 annual rate Paxton AI prints for a different product. If you want the provenance of each traced link by link, the Legora pricing page and the Harvey AI pricing page do that, including the twelve times unit error that runs through most Harvey articles.

Is there a seat minimum for Legora or Harvey?

Not one that either vendor has published, and the two numbers in circulation have very different standing. Harvey's 100 seat minimum is in the Artificial Lawyer table, and Harvey rejected it in writing: a spokesperson said the article "presumes a seat requirement for Harvey that is not accurate" and that Harvey has "a considerable number of mid-sized law firms and smaller inhouse teams globally." Several comparison pages now print 20 seats for Harvey instead, with no source for the change.

Legora's 10 seat minimum has no source at all. What Legora has published points the other way. Its solutions page for small and mid sized firms is headed "Small firm, big league", says "Leading boutique and mid-size firms run on Legora aOS", and closes with "Start lean, grow at your pace." That is not the language of a vendor with a hard floor. It may still quote you a minimum, and you should get it in writing, but do not walk in assuming one exists.

Legora vs Harvey on scale, funding and customers

This is the part both companies do publish, and it is where the Harvey lead is real. All figures below are company statements or the reporting of the outlet named.

One piece of arithmetic falls out of Legora's numbers and it matters for a buyer. More than $100M of recurring revenue across more than 1,000 customers puts the average Legora customer at roughly $100,000 a year or less. With White & Case and Linklaters in the mix paying far above that, the median contract is well below it. Whatever Legora is, it is not sold only in six figure deals, and a mid sized US firm is inside its actual customer distribution, not outside it.

What each platform actually sells

Both are agentic platforms now. Harvey's second generation, which it calls Harvey II, has agents that inherit matter context and memory. Legora launched the Legora Agent for all customers and Agent Pro, the metered tier, in June 2026. Underneath the agents the product maps differ, and the map is what a quote is priced against.

The research row is the one that decides most US purchases. Harvey's Lexis integration means a Harvey seat can carry licensed US primary law and a citator, which is what a litigation or diligence team that lives in the case law needs, and it is also the line that lifts the price. Legora's research portal is not the Lexis library. If your firm already pays for a research platform and mostly needs review, drafting and extraction across large document sets, that gap costs you nothing. If you were hoping the AI seat would replace the research subscription, only one of the two is positioned to try.

Which should a US law firm buy, Legora or Harvey?

Decide by bottleneck, not by the estimate. Three shapes of firm come up repeatedly and they sort cleanly.

• Research heavy US litigation or diligence, already on Lexis or considering it. Harvey, because the content sits inside the seat. Price the Lexis line separately and get the billing period in words.
• High volume document work, cross border matters, or a workload that swings month to month. Legora, because tabular review is its strongest product and consumption billing on Agent Pro means a quiet quarter costs less. Get the unit, the rate and the cap in writing, since Legora has published none of them.
• A boutique or mid sized firm that will not clear an enterprise sales cycle. Legora is the one actively marketing to you, and its customer arithmetic says you are inside its normal range. But run the numbers against the vendors that print a rate first: our Harvey AI alternatives rundown covers them, and CoCounsel pricing shows what Thomson Reuters will sell you at a published $292.50 a month.

There is a fourth shape, and it is most US plaintiff and litigation firms: the bottleneck is neither research nor bulk review. It is the assembly work between them, drafting from the record, keeping the chronology current when new documents arrive, and recalculating every dependent date when a hearing moves. Neither Harvey nor Legora is priced for that work; both would meter or license it at a frontier rate. Firms that move it into a fixed price tool first usually find they need fewer seats at the expensive tier, which is the cheapest negotiating position there is.

How to run the Legora vs Harvey bake-off

Both vendors will offer a demo on their own material. Insist on your material, the same three closed matters for both, one research heavy, one document heavy and one that is mostly drafting. Score outputs blind, by the associates who would use the tool, on citation accuracy, time to first usable draft and how many corrections the draft needed. Two weeks is enough. Ask each vendor to state, in the pilot agreement, how your matter data is handled and whether prompts are retained, and read the security report rather than the certification badge.

Then price what you scored. For Harvey that means a seat count, a billing period in words, the Lexis line separated, and a capped renewal. For Legora it means all of that for the platform seat plus the Agent Pro consumption terms as a separate schedule: the unit, the rate, any committed allowance, the overage price and what happens at the threshold. Because that line can move every month, route it through a purchase order with an approved ceiling rather than an open invoice, so the spend is authorized before it is incurred and finance sees a variable AI line the same way it sees court reporter fees.

Is Legora cheaper than Harvey?

Nobody outside both contracts can tell you, and every page that does is guessing with confidence. What is knowable is which vendor you can hold to something. Harvey has denied its public estimate, which at least tells you the real number is not that one. Legora has published a model, consumption for Agent Pro and the standard Agent included at no extra cost, which tells you the shape of the bill even without the rate. Walk into both calls with the printed rates from the vendors that do publish, the dates you read them, and the arithmetic on Legora's own customer average. That changes the conversation more than any comparison table will, including this one.