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.
| Harvey | CoCounsel | Genie AI | SallyIP | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Best for | Am Law 100 enterprise workflows | Westlaw-grounded research + drafting | Affordable contract drafting/review | Verifiable patent research, drafting, prosecution |
| Patent depth (FTO, novelty, claim charts, OA response) | Thin | Thin | None | 12 specialist workspaces |
| Citation verification mechanics | Citations, undisclosed method | KeyCite-backed | Risk flags | Exact-quote verification + dangling-label removal, measured |
| Published eval methodology | No | No | No | Yes (open bench runners + frozen datasets) |
| Measured hallucination rate | Unpublished | ~17%* (Stanford, older product) | Unpublished | 0% fabricated citations / 119 answers (internal, mechanical grading) |
| Price direction | ~$1,200/seat/mo | ~$225/seat/mo bundles | From $75/mo | Freemium / self-hosted |
* Thomson Reuters lineage product as tested; current CoCounsel may differ — they publish no current numbers.
Related: AI for IP lawyers · SallyIP benchmarks · SallyIP vs general legal AI · All resources
Last updated September 2026. Corrections welcome — methodology beats marketing.