Lease
Lease end
2030
Private preview
Comparison
RAIVA vs. Harvey
Legal work and company evidence: compare the task before choosing the platform. Harvey documents legal research and review tools; RAIVA describes an evidence-based approach to company knowledge.
In brief
Harvey already provides sources and structured review. The useful distinction is your workflow, source coverage and required verification, not a claim that only RAIVA cites sources.
RAIVA is an evidence-based AI platform for company knowledge. The RAIVA descriptions cover documented product principles, not verified production availability. Confirm functions, integrations and access in a demo. Virtual Employees remain a future vision.
Illustrative evaluation scenario
Lindenhof: one lease, two versions
A lease states a fixed end in 2030. A 2nd amendment extends it to 2033 but is signed by the tenant only. A third file cannot be read. Ask each provider to show the relevant passages, the conflict, the unread file and the documents actually examined. No provider response is simulated here.
Six questions for your demoLindenhofIllustrative evaluation scenario
2nd amendment
Lease end
2033
Unreadable file—
Two passages. One conflict. An open review.
Compare the work that matters
Six questions for your demo| Criterion |  RAIVADocumented product principles | HHarveyAssistant / Vault / Workflow Agents |
|---|---|---|
| Typical tasks | Company knowledge and document-based decisions. [1] | Legal research, drafting and document review. [2] |
| Company sources | Connect information within defined workspaces; confirm each integration. [1] | Uploads, Vault and selected legal knowledge sources. [2] |
| Sources and verification | Check whether a passage supports the claim; keep gaps visible. [1] | Source-linked answers; human verification remains necessary. [2] |
| Research scope | Separate supporting evidence from completeness of review. [1] | Vault supports large document sets; test coverage explicitly. [2] |
| Structured results | Traceable results with sources and review steps. [1] | Review Tables and exportable drafts. [2] |
| Collaboration | Human review within defined workspaces; confirm sharing behavior. [1] | Vault sharing within a workspace. [3] |
| Permissions | Work within access rights; verify enforcement in your scenario. [1] | Vault sharing controls; test source-right revocation. [3] |
| Implementation effort | Agree sources, responsibilities and acceptance criteria; effort remains open. [1] | Confirm legal sources, rollout and workflow configuration. [2] |
Which approach fits your work?
Put Harvey on your shortlist for legal research, drafting and matter-based document review. Validate jurisdiction, licensed sources and current rollout with the provider.
Compare approachesEvaluate RAIVA when your team must justify a company-specific decision through passages, review scope and traceable steps. Ask for proof using your acceptance criteria.
Request a demoSix questions for your demo
Take these questions into every provider conversation. Use the same documents and acceptance criteria.
Can I open the exact passage behind each material claim?
Which documents were searched, omitted or unreadable?
How are conflicting versions and missing evidence shown?
Can a reviewer reconstruct the inputs and steps behind an export?
What happens after source access is revoked, including in shared results?
Which edition, sources, limits, costs and setup steps does this workflow require?
Sources and scope
An editorial comparison of official documentation, not a hands-on product test or ranking. A source reference alone proves neither a claim nor a complete review. Undocumented behavior remains open; editions, configuration and rollout can change availability.
Checked:
Next step
Bring your question. Examine the evidence.
Use the contact form to request a demo with your task, source systems and review requirements. Availability, setup effort and commercial terms must be clarified individually.