SallyIP vs Harvey vs CoCounsel vs Genie AI (2026)

Short version: Harvey and CoCounsel lead enterprise legal AI adoption. Genie AI leads accessible contract drafting. SallyIP is built for a narrower job — verifiable patent work — and publishes its measurement methodology instead of a score.

What peer-reviewed research actually says about hallucinations

Head-to-head

HarveyCoCounselGenie AISallyIP
Best forAm Law 100 enterprise workflowsWestlaw-grounded research + draftingAffordable contract drafting/reviewVerifiable patent research, drafting, prosecution
Patent depth (FTO, novelty, claim charts, OA response)ThinThinNone12 specialist workspaces
Citation verification mechanicsCitations, undisclosed methodKeyCite-backedRisk flagsExact-quote verification + dangling-label removal, measured
Published eval methodologyNoNoNoYes (open bench runners + frozen datasets)
Measured hallucination rateUnpublished~17%* (Stanford, older product)Unpublished0% fabricated citations / 119 answers (internal, mechanical grading)
Price direction~$1,200/seat/mo~$225/seat/mo bundlesFrom $75/moFreemium / self-hosted

* Thomson Reuters lineage product as tested; current CoCounsel may differ — they publish no current numbers.

Our position, plainly: if you are an Am Law 100 firm, buy Harvey or CoCounsel. If you draft everyday contracts cheaply, try Genie. If you do patent work and want every material conclusion traceable to its evidence — with the receipts published — try SallyIP.
Try SallyIP

Related: AI for IP lawyers · SallyIP benchmarks · SallyIP vs general legal AI · All resources

Last updated September 2026. Corrections welcome — methodology beats marketing.