Comparison Matrix · Built April 25, 2026

EvenUp vs Supio vs Filevine vs Harvey vs CoCounsel: 13-Feature Matrix (2026)

A 13-feature, 6-vendor comparison of MedLegal AI Courtroom AI vs EvenUp, Supio, Filevine, Harvey, and CoCounsel. Built from public sources only — vendor websites, G2, Capterra, LawNext, LawSites, and Artificial Lawyer. No NDA materials.

By John Mahoney · 9-minute read · Last verified: 2026-04-25

Verify it yourself — free, no login

See how AI medical-record review links every fact to the exact Bates page that proves it — click any citation and jump straight to the record.

See the 60-second demo →

Why this matrix exists

If you're a plaintiff or litigation lawyer evaluating AI tools in 2026, you've probably noticed every single comparison page on the internet is written by one of the vendors. We're no exception — MedLegal AI is one of the six tools in this matrix. So this is biased by definition. We've tried to keep it honest by following three rules:

Public-source-only. A cell is marked ✓ only if the vendor publicly advertises the feature on their own site or it appears in a reputable third-party review (G2, Capterra, LawSites, LawNext, Artificial Lawyer). If we couldn't verify, we marked ?.
Honest losses. There are entire columns where we lose. Filevine has matter management we don't ship. Harvey has BigLaw research depth we can't match. CoCounsel has Westlaw. We say so plainly below the table.
Freshness signal. This matrix was verified on April 25, 2026. Legal AI features change weekly. If something is wrong, email [email protected] and we'll fix it within 48 hours.

The matrix

✓ publicly advertised ∼ partial / via prompt × not advertised ? couldn't verify

Feature	MedLegal AI	EvenUp	Supio	Filevine	Harvey	CoCounsel
Public flat-rate pricing^[1]	✓	×	×	∼	×	∼
Live deposition transcription (during depo)^[2]	✓	×	✓	✓	×	×
Real-time citation verification during testimony^[3]	✓	×	×	×	×	×
Real-time contradiction / impeachment flagging^[4]	✓	×	✓	✓	×	×
CMS Open Payments lookup (industry $ to expert)^[5]	✓	×	×	×	×	×
NIH RePORTER grant lookup^[5]	✓	×	×	×	×	×
Prior-deposition / testimony pull (CourtListener)^[6]	✓	×	∼	×	∼	✓
Automated 14-section Daubert memo (.docx + PDF)^[7]	✓	×	×	×	∼	∼
Multi-witness concurrent sessions^[8]	✓	×	?	?	×	×
AI-drafted demand letter (PI)^[9]	✓	✓	✓	✓	∼	∼
Practice / matter management^[10]	×	×	∼	✓	×	×
Westlaw / LexisNexis integration^[11]	×	×	×	×	✓	✓
Med-mal / nursing-home / birth-injury tuning^[12]	✓	×	×	∼	×	×

Sources (verified 2026-04-25):

Filevine and CoCounsel publish partial pricing (filevine.com/pricing; CoCounsel: $75/task to $500/user/mo). EvenUp, Supio, Harvey require a sales call.
Supio Depositions and Filevine Depo CoPilot both advertise live transcription with in-depo analysis. EvenUp homepage is demand-letter-focused. Harvey litigation page is silent on live depo. CoCounsel deposition features are post-hoc transcript review.
No competitor publicly advertises a system that pulls cited papers and verifies them while the witness is still on the stand. Verified 2026-04-25 search across all six vendor sites and 8 third-party comparison pages.
Supio and Filevine Depo CoPilot both advertise live contradiction / inconsistency flagging on their product pages.
None of the five competitors lists CMS Open Payments or NIH RePORTER as built-in expert-witness research sources on their public sites. The closest analog is Expert Witness Profiler, which is a separate paid service, not a feature of any of these platforms.
CoCounsel marketing cites a real customer case analyzing 75,000 pages of an expert's 63 prior transcripts. Harvey "Deep Research" markets multi-step litigation analysis. Supio depositions module supports cross-document analysis. Only MedLegal AI advertises a CourtListener-keyed prior-depo lookup with live topic alerts.
Harvey and CoCounsel can synthesize Daubert-style memos via prompts but do not advertise a structured 14-section .docx/PDF deliverable as a one-click product.
MedLegal AI shipped concurrent multi-witness sessions on 2026-04-25. Supio and Filevine product pages don't speak to this directly — marked ? pending vendor confirmation.
EvenUp Demands, Supio, Filevine DemandsAI all ship dedicated PI demand-letter products. Harvey and CoCounsel can draft demands via prompt but it isn't their core product.
Filevine is matter-management-first. Supio integrates with MyCase and CasePeer (partial). MedLegal AI does not ship matter management — that's a deliberate scope choice.
Harvey integrated with LexisNexis in June 2025. CoCounsel is Thomson Reuters native (Westlaw).
MedLegal AI specialty keywords cover 14 medical specialties incl. birth injury, anesthesiology, infectious disease. EvenUp and Supio are explicitly PI-only. Filevine handles multiple practice areas via case management but doesn't tune medical analysis to specialty.

Where MedLegal AI loses

If we pretended this matrix was a clean sweep, you wouldn't trust the rest. Here's where each competitor genuinely beats us:

Filevine wins on case management. If you need a single system of record for matters, intake, calendaring, billing, and document storage — that's Filevine's home turf, not ours. We don't ship matter management and we don't plan to.
Harvey wins on BigLaw transactional research. If you're an Am Law 200 firm doing M&A due diligence at scale, Harvey + Vault is the right tool. With LexisNexis baked in since June 2025, Harvey now has access to a "must-have" proprietary research library we don't and won't.
CoCounsel wins on Westlaw integration. If your firm has been on Westlaw for fifteen years and you want AI that grounds answers in real Westlaw cites, CoCounsel is the obvious upgrade path. We don't have a Thomson Reuters partnership.
EvenUp wins on Expert-Reviewed demand-letter quality. Their human-in-the-loop drafter review tier produces letters polished beyond what any pure-AI workflow ships. If you do 200+ PI demands a year and quality > price, EvenUp is credible.
Supio wins on PI case-prep breadth. If your case mix is 100% PI and you're already on MyCase or CasePeer, Supio's automatic case sync + Instant Ledger billing rollup is more polished than anything we ship for PI specifically.

Where MedLegal AI wins

The legitimate moat — the place we genuinely have something nobody else publicly advertises — sits in three rows of the matrix above:

Real-time citation verification. When a defense expert says "I rely on Smith et al. 2019 for that opinion," our system pulls Smith 2019 from PubMed inside the depo and shows you whether it actually says what they claim. No competitor in this matrix advertises this. It's the difference between catching a fabricated cite at the depo (settlement leverage) versus catching it three weeks later (post-hoc memo).
Multi-source Daubert workup. CMS Open Payments + NIH RePORTER + SEC Form 4 + IRS Form 990 + state medical boards + Medicare practice profile — that combination of public datasets, queried in one sweep against a witness name, is genuinely unique. Harvey and CoCounsel can synthesize memos if you feed them the data. We pull the data ourselves and then synthesize.
The combination during a live deposition. Supio and Filevine ship live transcription with contradiction flagging — that's table stakes now. The combination of live transcription + multi-source bias research + citation verification running concurrently is the unique offering. Other tools do one or two of those legs. We do all three in a single session.

Closing — who should pick which tool

BigLaw transactional / M&AHarvey. Vault for due diligence, LexisNexis for research. Don't overthink it.

Westlaw firm, mid-to-largeCoCounsel. You're already paying TR. Add the agentic layer.

PI shop with intake bottleneckEvenUp (volume, Express tier) or Supio (full lifecycle, MyCase/CasePeer integration).

Multi-practice firm needing matter managementFilevine. Case management first, AI bolt-ons second. Watch the support reviews.

Mid-size plaintiff med-mal / nursing-home / birth-injuryMedLegal AI. Specialty-tuned analysis + live-depo Daubert workup is what we built for.

Solo or small firm under $5K/mo budgetMedLegal AI ($49–$499 flat) or Filevine starter (~$65/user/mo). EvenUp/Harvey/CoCounsel pricing won't fit.

Honest take: If you're a plaintiff lawyer doing 2+ depositions a week against retained medical experts, the live citation-verify + CMS Open Payments combination is genuinely the thing nobody else ships. If you're doing transactional work or BigLaw litigation, Harvey or CoCounsel is the better tool. Pick the one your case mix actually points to — there's no single winner across all six columns of this table.

Start 14-Day Free Trial See Courtroom AI Live

See the AI cite its source — no login

Most legal AI is wrong 17–33% of the time. Watch MedLegal AI pin every finding to the exact record page — click any citation and it jumps to the line that proves it.

Watch the 30-second demo →