Everlaw vs Relativity: Which Fits Litigation in 2026

Key Takeaways

• Everlaw and the cloud platform Relativity now sells as Relativity aiR are both Quote-based. The pricing pages opened for this guide do not print a dollar rate.

• Everlaw's current pricing grid lists processing at 1,000,000 documents per hour, unlimited user licenses, and credits on several batch AI actions.

• Everlaw's hosted-data page publishes upload at 900,000 documents per hour and review at 86 documents per hour, or 140 with automatic context coding.

• Relativity aiR bundles core generative review with the data commitment and no per-user fees, and licenses Translate, Legal Hold, FOIA, and Data Breach Response apart from that commitment.

• New Relativity Server matters are available through December 31, 2027. Relativity says 85% of its customers have already moved to the cloud, and it reports 36 billion documents in Relativity aiR.

• Software Advice, updated September 29, 2026, shows Everlaw at 4.9 from 87 reviews and Relativity at 4.2 from 57 reviews. PeerSpot's October 2026 engagement mindshare is 2.6% for Everlaw and 2.8% for Relativity. Those are review-site figures, not your matter's speed.

Ediscovery review software is the system a firm uses to process evidence, search and code it, redact it, and build the production that goes to the other side. TL;DR: choose Everlaw when the working lawyers need one cloud bench with unlimited users, timelines, and transcript work, and you can police AI credits; choose Relativity aiR when the firm already runs Relativity, needs its add-on stack, or has to schedule the Server cutoff before 2028.

Start with the matter, then the platform

The search "everlaw vs relativity" usually means a litigation support lead is close to a decision on where the next review will live. The useful answer is not a winner's badge. It is which system matches the matter you can describe this week: where the data sits, who will code, whether privilege and translation are in the same contract, and whether an older Relativity Server room still has to open new workspaces.

Neither product has been discontinued. Everlaw's pricing page still sells Everlaw, under the name Everlaw Platform, as a cloud evidentiary system that connects to tools such as Claude, Harvey, and Gemini. Relativity's pricing page now titles the offer Relativity aiR. The cloud product many firms still call RelativityOne is the platform those commercial pages price under the aiR name. Relativity Server remains a separate hosting path with a dated limit on new matters, described below. Conversational claiR is marked "Coming Soon" on the pricing page, so it is not a second platform you can buy as generally available today.

A lead should separate three stacks before comparing features. The review platform holds the evidence and the production. A generative assistant sitting beside it, including the ones Everlaw and Relativity name on their own pages, only helps if it can see the coded set under the firm's permissions. A workflow layer that moves a count, a billing note, or an approval is a third purchase. Mixing those three in one demo is how firms sign a review contract and still track status in a spreadsheet.

Who this is for

This comparison is for a litigation support lead, discovery project manager, or litigation operations partner at a law firm who will recommend one review system for matters that need processing, coding, redaction, and a production. You are close enough to a choice that a quote request is a reasonable next step. You can name the data sources, the reviewers, and whether the firm already has Relativity Server or a cloud workspace.

It is also for the partner who will ask why the quote looks the way it does. Both vendors meter data rather than printing a seat price. You will need a plain explanation of credits on Everlaw and of separately licensed add-ons on Relativity aiR. If your audience is a corporate legal department buying only a writing tool, or a marketing team buying campaign software, this page is the wrong shortlist. Those buyers are closer to a writing-tool shortlist for SaaS teams than to a production set.

Red flags: you require an on-premises workspace for every new matter after 2027, you will not request a quote until a public price list exists, or the immediate job is a short production your current tool already finishes. Any one of those means this pair is the wrong shortlist for that job.

How we evaluated these tools

The weights below are a buying order for a litigation support lead, not a lab score. Price shape and the data meter get 20% because both vendors refuse a self-serve dollar rate, so the quote's unit is the decision. Review throughput and coding control get another 20% because staffing is where the hours go. Ingestion, AI credit and privilege exposure, production and narrative tools, and hosting plus exit each get 15%. The check counts are the yes-or-no items we expect on a quote request. They are our list, not a ranking either vendor published.

The four price checks are: the unit you will be billed on, whether users are a separate fee, which term lengths exist, and which AI actions sit inside the base commitment. The processing checks are: a published speed with its unit, what the base subscription includes, and whether early-case culling is described. The review checks are: a published review or queue figure if one exists, coding or predictive coding on the grid, email threading, and a human approval point before a production. The AI checks are: which generative tools are included, which are credits or separate licenses, whether privilege logging is named, and whether a "coming soon" label is still on the page. The production checks are: redaction scope, production or clawback support, and narrative or transcript tools. The hosting checks are: cloud versus server, a named security attestation on the page itself, and a written exit or sunset date if the vendor has published one.

Public pages outweigh memory and third-party price roundups. A review-site star rating is reported with its sample size and date. It is not treated as proof of speed on your mailboxes. Where two Everlaw pages disagree, the current pricing grid controls the feature list, and the disagreement is stated. No figure in this guide was estimated to fill a gap.

What is still on sale

Everlaw's pricing grid, opened for this guide, lists cloud connectors for Microsoft 365, Zoom, and Google Workspace, Processing rate: 1,000,000 documents per hour, audio and video transcription, batch redactions, native spreadsheet and video redactions, email threading, productions with clawbacks, predictive coding, concept clustering, a communication visualizer, timelines, transcript analysis, fact management, and a writing assistant, with unlimited user licenses, onboarding, training, support, and standard data migration, according to Everlaw (2026). That same grid marks coding suggestions, Deep Dive natural-language questions, machine translation across 100+ languages, and custom extractions as credits, while a single document on coding suggestions, translation, and custom extractions does not use credits. Intake, case management, and compliance reporting are marked as an add-on. The page states SOC 2 Type 2, FedRAMP Certification Class C (Moderate), and GovRAMP Moderate Authorization.

Relativity's pricing page describes Commitment length: 1 or 3 years, and also a pay-as-you-go option, with core AI included in the committed data volume, no extra AI licenses, and no per-user fees, according to Relativity (2026). Included names on that page are Assist, aiR Review, Privilege, and Case Strategy, plus processing, analytics, Review Center, Redact, automated workflows, a native viewer, audio and video transcription, email thread visualization, and near-duplicate detection. claiR is labeled Coming Soon. Data Breach Response, Translate, Relativity FOIA, and Legal Hold are licensed separately. Translate is described there as 100+ languages. Open APIs, the App Hub, and MCP connectors are described as available at no additional license cost. The page does not print a dollar rate. Ask for the quote in writing.

Relativity states that Cloud share: 85% of customers have moved to the cloud, that Relativity aiR holds 36 billion documents, that the largest workspace holds 174 million documents, that customers with a Server license may open new matters and workspaces through December 31, 2027, and that a processing speed of 300 GB per hour is marked as coming in Q4 2026, with cloud-only transcription listed up to 10,000 audio or video files in over 140 languages, according to Relativity (2026). That page also says existing Server matters stay supported with maintenance and security patches, that there is no current plan to discontinue Server, and that from 2028 new matters and workspaces are to be hosted in Relativity aiR aside from limited customer and geographic exceptions. Beginning January 1, 2028, Server instances must be on the then-current Server version. The page also lists 5PB+ of auto-scaling and 1TB+ of daily processing throughput.

Staffing rates you can cite

Everlaw's hosted-data page is the source for reviewer math, and it should not be blended with the processing figure above. It says pricing follows the amount of data hosted and includes unlimited user licenses, unlimited processing, and unlimited productions, along with Storybuilder and the prediction engine. It publishes Standard review: 86 documents per hour, 140 documents per hour with automatic context coding, and upload speeds of 900,000 documents per hour, according to Everlaw (2026). Those are Everlaw's published rates. They are not a timed run on your collection, and this guide did not retest them.

Use the rates as a staffing hypothesis the lead can show a partner, then replace them with the firm's own review log after the first week. The processing unit on Everlaw's grid is documents per hour. The forward processing unit on Relativity's cloud page is gigabytes per hour, and that page still marks 300 GB per hour as coming in Q4 2026. A document-per-hour claim and a gigabyte-per-hour claim do not divide into each other until you know how large your files are. Put both numbers in the quote file with their units attached.

The same hosted-data page lists foreign-language translation as included. The current pricing grid marks machine translation as credits except for a single document. Carry both statements into the quote call and ask which one the order form uses. Unlimited productions are stated on the hosted-data page. The pricing grid names advanced productions with clawbacks and does not repeat the word unlimited. Ask the order form to say which production actions are inside the hosted-data rate.

Pricing checked against the vendor pages

Pricing checked October 10, 2026.

Neither vendor's own pricing page prints a public dollar rate, a per-gigabyte card, or a seat card. This guide therefore prints Quote-based for both and does not repeat starting prices that appear on review directories. A directory figure is not a contract. The meters below are what the vendor pages themselves describe.

Total cost is the hosted or committed volume, plus Everlaw credits if you run batch Deep Dive, batch coding suggestions, batch translation, or batch custom extractions, plus any Relativity add-on you actually need. Legal Hold, Translate, FOIA, and Data Breach Response sit outside the Relativity aiR data commitment. Everlaw's grid does not list a legal-hold line. If hold notices are in scope, ask Everlaw whether they live in this subscription or in another tool, and ask Relativity for the separate Legal Hold license. Intake, case management, and compliance reporting are an Everlaw add-on, so a public-records group and a litigation group may be looking at different line items.

A three-year Relativity commitment and an Everlaw hosted-data subscription are different shapes even when both say "data." One locks a volume commitment in exchange for the term the pricing page describes. The other follows the amount of data hosted, with unlimited users and, on the hosted-data page, unlimited processing and productions. Ask each quote to show peak hosted size, what happens when a production set is deleted, whether a partial project bills twice, and who can turn batch AI off. Everlaw's grid shows that a single document can avoid credits on some actions. A batch run is the line that will surprise a partner if nobody is watching it.

Security paperwork is part of the price conversation because it changes which matters can move. Everlaw's pricing page states SOC 2 Type 2, FedRAMP Certification Class C (Moderate), and GovRAMP Moderate Authorization. The Relativity pricing page and the server-policy page opened here describe Security Center and a cloud move. They do not state a FedRAMP level in the text used for this guide. Request Relativity's current authorization packet rather than treating a missing line as a denial. For a UK matter, Everlaw's UK pricing page adds Cyber Essentials Plus, ISO certification, and G-Cloud 14 availability, which is a different packet from the US FedRAMP line.

Side-by-side on the buying points

The matrix uses only items read on the pages opened for this guide. "Listed" means the vendor page names it. "Ask" means the page does not settle the point.

Stars from reviewers sit beside that matrix so a lead does not confuse a feature list with a satisfaction sample. On the Software Advice comparison updated September 29, 2026, Everlaw score: 4.9 out of 5 from 87 reviews, and 94% of those users recommend the product, according to Software Advice (2026). The same page shows Relativity score: 4.2 out of 5 from 57 reviews, and 75% recommend it, according to Software Advice (2026).

PeerSpot is a different sample and a different scale. As of October 2026 its eDiscovery engagement mindshare is Everlaw mindshare: 2.6%, down from 2.7% the prior year, against Relativity at 2.8%, down from 5.8%, with other products at 94.6%, according to PeerSpot (2026). That page also shows an Everlaw rating: 8.0 out of 10 from 11 reviews and 91% of Everlaw reviewers willing to recommend, and it lists 0 Relativity reviews on that comparison record, so the 0.0 average shown there is an empty record rather than a satisfaction score, according to PeerSpot (2026). Mindshare here is PeerSpot's engagement math, not a census of law-firm spend. Eleven reviews is a thin base next to Software Advice's 87. Report both, and do not average them into a new score.

Everlaw profile

Everlaw fits a firm that wants attorneys and litigation support in one cloud database, with unlimited user licenses so a trial team can be added without a seat line on the quote. The pricing grid puts timelines, transcript analysis, fact management, and a writing assistant next to review. The hosted-data page adds Storybuilder for case building and deposition work. That combination matters when the same people who code documents also build a chronology. A firm that already keeps chronology in a separate tool can ignore those modules and still use processing, threading, clustering, and predictive coding.

The limitations are the credit meter, the absence of a legal-hold line on the grid, and the lack of an on-premises option on the pages opened. Batch Deep Dive, batch coding suggestions, batch translation, and batch custom extractions can move the bill even when the hosted-data rate looks steady. Single-document use of several of those tools is marked as not using credits, which is useful for a spot check and easy to outgrow on a real review. Intake, case management, and compliance reporting cost extra. If the mandate includes preserving mailboxes before collection, confirm in writing whether hold lives here.

Implementation, as the pages describe it, includes onboarding, online training, support, and standard data migration. Connectors named on the grid are Microsoft 365, Zoom, and Google Workspace. The developer reference for Everlaw's MCP server, opened for this guide, lists read scopes such as REVIEW_READ for project search and DEEP_DIVE_READ for Deep Dive questions, and it requires an access token for a signed-in user. That is a prerequisite for any later handoff into another system, and it is not itself a review workflow. Plan a human check on coding suggestions before they become a production code. Everlaw's own grid does not publish a credit price, so the implementation plan should include a monthly credit cap the firm chooses, even though the public page does not print one.

Primary evidence is the pricing grid at Everlaw's pricing page and the hosted-data explanation on the transparent-pricing page cited above. Security claims to hand a client are the SOC 2 Type 2, FedRAMP Certification Class C (Moderate), and GovRAMP Moderate lines on the pricing page. Do not stretch those lines to a matter they do not cover. A state agency and a private commercial case can face different hosting rules, and the quote should name the environment.

Relativity aiR profile

Relativity aiR fits a firm or provider that already administers Relativity, depends on the App Hub, or needs Privilege, Review Center, and Case Strategy in the same commitment as processing. The pricing page's "no per-user fees" line changes an old assumption that every reviewer adds a seat. The live commercial choice is pay as you go versus a one-year or three-year data commitment, then which of the four separately licensed products you add. Privilege included with the volume is a direct buying point if privilege logs dominate the calendar. Case Strategy is the narrative tool named on the page. claiR is not yet something you can promise a partner as available.

The limitations are quote complexity, the add-on list, and the Server clock. Translate, Legal Hold, FOIA, and Data Breach Response are outside the included set. A breach matter or a public-records matter can look inexpensive on the data commitment and then pick up those licenses. The 300 GB per hour processing figure is marked as coming in Q4 2026, so a quote dated in October 2026 should say whether that rate is live in your tenant. Cloud-only tools on the policy page, including Assist, Case Strategy, Privilege, aiR Review, Collect, and the transcription cap of 10,000 files, are not available on Server. A team that stays on Server through the end of 2027 is not buying the same feature list as a team that moves.

Implementation is a migration project if you still have Server. The policy page tells customers to plan so that new matters in 2028 sit in Relativity aiR, aside from limited exceptions, and it points to a migration hub and partners. Existing Server workspaces continue. New feature updates will not go to Server, while maintenance and security patches will. From January 1, 2028, instances need the then-current Server version. Budget the upgrade and the move as separate work from the AI review pilot. MCP and open APIs are part of the pricing-page story at no extra license cost, which matters if you want an assistant to open workspaces under your governance. Keep Relativity as the system of record the pricing page describes, and keep a person on any production release.

Primary evidence is the Relativity aiR pricing page and the Server 2028 policy page cited above. The 36 billion document footprint and the 174 million document workspace are scale claims on that policy page, useful as a capacity signal and not as a prediction for your matter. The Software Advice sample of 57 reviews is the public satisfaction figure to put next to the sales conversation, with the 4.2 overall score and the 3.5 value-for-money score visible so the firm asks about admin time rather than assuming the install will feel small.

A staffing example with public rates

Take a first-pass set of 86,000 documents and apply only the rates Everlaw publishes for standard review and for automatic context coding. Divide 86,000 by 86 documents per hour and you get 1,000 reviewer-hours. Divide 86,000 by 140 documents per hour and you get 614.3 reviewer-hours. The difference is 385.7 hours, which is 38.6 percent fewer hours than the 1,000-hour path. That arithmetic is illustrative. It uses Standard review: 86 documents per hour and the 140 document rate cited above, and it is not a test of this firm, a promise of 38.6 percent savings, or a reason to skip quality control. Before anyone is staffed, a proposed check can run the firm's saved search under the REVIEW_READ scope, read the document count that comes back, and stop so a litigation support lead can confirm the set is the one the partner meant.

Put the 385.7 hours next to the credit question. Automatic context coding is only helpful if the coding suggestions you rely on are covered the way the order form says. If a batch suggestion spends credits, the hour cut and the credit line belong on the same page of the staffing memo. If the set is in Relativity aiR instead, do not paste the 86 and 140 rates onto it. Ask for Review Center's behavior on your data, and keep Everlaw's document-per-hour rates on Everlaw's row only.

After the platform is chosen

The pain after the signature is rarely "we cannot search." It is that the count, the credit burn, and the production status live in three inboxes, and the partner hears about a slip on Friday. A proposed configuration from US Tech Automations would trigger when a project search finishes or a production list is updated, read the document count through the vendor's API or a scheduled export the firm already allows, and write an internal task that shows the set size, the hour estimate, and any failed call. The output is that task, held for a person on the litigation support desk. Prerequisites are an authorized credential, the REVIEW_READ scope or the matching Relativity object read on a named workspace, and a rule for which search is allowed. Nothing in that design is a live customer, a measured saving, or a current deployment.

A second proposed workflow watches hosted size so the bill does not wait for the monthly close. The trigger is a scheduled lookup using a size field the platform already stores, such as Everlaw's BILLABLE_SIZE search term, or a usage export Relativity's administrators already pull. US Tech Automations would compare that size with a threshold the firm writes down, open a note to the billing coordinator when the threshold is crossed, and retry a failed call without sending anything to the client. A person still decides whether the note becomes a call to the vendor. Prerequisites are the same credential, a matter identifier the firm trusts, and a named reviewer. The design can also branch when the export is empty, so a silent failure does not look like a zero-dollar week.

Zapier, Make, and n8n can support this pattern when someone builds it. Those tools can keep a run history, retry a failed step, branch on errors, and store an audit trail of what ran. The buyer then owns observability, idempotency so the same count is not posted twice, escalation, access control, and maintenance when a vendor changes a field. A proposed US Tech Automations design can configure the matter checklist, the retry, and the approval stop as one flow, with the credential and the human review point required before a note leaves the desk. That is a different job from processing and producing evidence. It does not make either review platform optional.

When not to add US Tech Automations: leave it out when the platform dashboard already shows the lead the count they use, when counsel will not approve an API key or a CSV export, or when the matter is short enough that the spreadsheet already on the shared drive is the record the team will actually update. A simpler tool you already run wins those cases. Outside the discovery desk, status memos and client letters are a separate buying question, closer to a writing-tool guide for agencies than to a production protocol. Pace tracking has a cousin on the marketing side in this month-end underpacing recipe, and the litigation version should use review hours and hosted size, not campaign spend.

Mistakes before the quote

Buyers lose months on a few repeatable errors.

• Treating a review-directory starting price as the contract. The vendor pages opened here are Quote-based. Ask for the order form.

• Comparing 1,000,000 documents per hour with 300 GB per hour as if they were the same unit. Attach the unit, and treat the Relativity processing line as marked for Q4 2026 until your quote says it is live.

• Ignoring Everlaw credits and Relativity's separate licenses. The base commitment is not the whole invoice.

• Missing December 31, 2027. New Server matters have a published end date for most customers. Existing matters are a different sentence on that page.

• Assuming a star rating predicts your corpus. Software Advice's 4.9 and 4.2, and PeerSpot's 2.6% and 2.8% mindshare, answer different questions than a mailbox that is full of chat exports.

• Staffing from the 86 or 140 document rate without a first-week log from your own reviewers. Use the public rate to open the conversation, then replace it.

• Buying Storybuilder, Case Strategy, or a writing assistant when nobody is assigned to keep the chronology current. Shelf modules still sit inside the relationship you have to govern.

A short decision check before you request quotes: name the hosting rule, name the hold and translation requirement, name who may run batch AI, name the Server date if Relativity is in the building, and name the person who may approve a production. If any line is blank, the demo will not settle it.

Glossary

• Hosted data: the volume a vendor uses as the meter. Everlaw describes its price as based on data hosted. Relativity aiR describes a committed data volume.

• Production: the set of documents prepared for another party. Everlaw's hosted-data page says productions are unlimited. Confirm the order form.

• Predictive coding: a review-prioritization method. Everlaw lists it on the pricing grid. Relativity lists Review Center and aiR Review for prioritized and generative review.

• Clawback: a production feature for pulling back material that should not have gone out. Everlaw's grid lists advanced productions with clawbacks.

• Credit: Everlaw's label for several batch AI actions. The pricing grid does not print a price per credit.

• Relativity Server: the on-premises product. New matters and workspaces are available to licensed customers through December 31, 2027, with existing matters continuing after that.

• Relativity aiR: the name on Relativity's current pricing and cloud-migration pages for the cloud platform, including the AI tools tied to the data commitment.

• Control number: the Bates-style identifier on a document. Everlaw's MCP reference returns it with search results so a handoff can point at a specific record.

Questions from the litigation support desk

Is Relativity still sold as RelativityOne?

Relativity's current pricing page sells the cloud platform as Relativity aiR, with claiR marked Coming Soon and Server kept as a separate path. Older story links on the cloud page still say RelativityOne. Treat aiR as the name on a new quote, and ask the account team to map any existing RelativityOne workspace to that name in writing so the invoice and the playbook match.

Does either vendor publish a dollar price?

No. Both pricing pages opened on October 10, 2026 are Quote-based, with no public per-gigabyte or per-user card. Everlaw describes hosted data and unlimited user licenses. Relativity aiR describes pay as you go or a one-year or three-year commitment, with no per-user fees. Request the order form rather than a directory's starting price.

Which platform fits a firm that already has Relativity Server?

Use Server for new matters only through December 31, 2027, unless you have one of the limited exceptions the policy page tells you to confirm with Relativity. Existing Server matters stay supported. New matters in 2028 are directed to Relativity aiR. Everlaw does not offer a Server path on the pages opened here, so it is a cloud move, not a way to keep the same on-premises room.

Are reviewer seats the main line on the quote?

No. Everlaw lists unlimited user licenses, and Relativity aiR states there are no per-user fees. The meters to read are hosted or committed data, Everlaw's credit-marked batch AI actions, and Relativity's separately licensed Translate, Legal Hold, FOIA, and Data Breach Response products. A large review team changes training and quality control more than it changes the seat line those pages describe.

How should we treat Everlaw AI credits before signing?

Treat batch Deep Dive, batch coding suggestions, batch translation, and batch custom extractions as metered, because the pricing grid marks them as credits, and treat single-document use of coding suggestions, translation, and custom extractions as the exception the grid marks with no credits. No credit price is printed. Put a monthly cap and a named approver in the rollout even though you will have to negotiate the cap, since the public page does not list one.

Can Zapier, Make, or n8n replace the review platform?

No. Those tools can move a file, call an API, retry, and keep a log when you configure them. They do not process, thread, code, redact, or produce the evidence set. Everlaw or Relativity aiR remains the system of record. A workflow tool, including a proposed US Tech Automations flow, only helps after the platform is chosen and a person still approves the handoff.

Do the review scores mean one platform is faster?

No. Software Advice's 4.9 from 87 reviews and 4.2 from 57 reviews, updated September 29, 2026, measure reviewer satisfaction on that site. PeerSpot's October 2026 figures measure engagement mindshare at 2.6% and 2.8% and rate Everlaw 8.0 from 11 reviews. Speed claims to staff against are Everlaw's published 1,000,000 documents per hour, 900,000-document upload, and 86 or 140 documents per hour, plus Relativity's published footprint and the processing rate it marks as coming in Q4 2026. Your first-week log replaces all of them for staffing.

The choice is a quote you can defend: hosted data and credits on Everlaw, or a Relativity aiR commitment plus the add-ons and the Server date. For the approval and billing handoffs around that quote, see how US Tech Automations configures this.