COMPARISON · Legal research
CoCounsel vs Midpage
Legal research assistants compared on firm-size scope and data-handling statements. This page places vendor-published facts side by side. It does not rank the products or state which is better.
| Fact | CoCounsel | Midpage |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Legal research | Legal research |
| Vendor | Thomson Reuters | Midpage |
| Status | Active | Active |
| Price path | Contact sales: No public price was located in the checked vendor source. | Public price: Vendor publishes a pricing page. |
| Confidentiality statement | “Your user content and prompts are not used to train or improve CoCounsel and associated products or LLMs used in Thomson Reuters or third-party output.” | “Midpage maintains administrative, physical, and technical safeguards designed to protect the security, confidentiality, and integrity of Customer Data.” |
| Training or data-use statement | No-training commitment: “Thomson Reuters AI third-party partners, such as OpenAI and Google, are contractually prohibited from using any customer data to train their models.” | No-training commitment: “Agreements with AI model providers do not permit those vendors to train on Midpage customer data.” |
| Firm-size scope | 2-5 | Not stated |
| Named connections | Westlaw, Practical Law | Not stated |
| Data location | Not stated | Customer Data is encrypted at rest using AES-256 and in transit using TLS 1.2 or higher, in each case using industry-standard cryptographic algorithms. |
| Last checked | September 15, 2026 | September 21, 2026 |
Every value above is a dated observation from the vendor’s own published material. Open either tool page for the full evidence ledger and source links.
Editorial assessment, side by side
The rows below are the CounselAtlas editorial desk’s own reading, not vendor statements. They restate what each vendor published and add no claim of its own. Neither column is a rating or a recommendation.
| Assessment | CoCounsel | Midpage |
|---|---|---|
| Reading the vendor's wording | The vendor publishes both a confidentiality statement and a no-training commitment, which is more than some research tools state. The firm-size language points at the 2-5 band. | The vendor states that agreements with AI model providers do not permit those vendors to train on customer data, that data is encrypted at rest with AES-256 and in transit with TLS 1.2 or higher, and that controls are validated by annual SOC 2 Type II and HIPAA audits. This is one of the fuller disclosures in the research category. |
| What adopting it costs | It is a focused subscription rather than a platform seat, so adopting it does not require leaving an existing research platform. That also means it can sit alongside one, which lowers the switching risk. | It is a research surface rather than a system of record, so adopting it does not replace matter management. It can sit alongside an existing research platform, which lowers the switching risk. |
| Closest alternative | Lexis+ with Protégé — The large-platform option with a different contract shape. This one is a focused subscription; that one is a seat inside a platform. | vLex Vincent AI — The closest newer research entrant. Both publish security detail; the difference is the content library behind the answers. |