COMPARISON · Drafting & review
Hebbia vs LegalFly
Document review tools compared on anonymisation and no-training statements. This page places vendor-published facts side by side. It does not rank the products or state which is better.
| Fact | Hebbia | LegalFly |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Drafting & review | Drafting & review |
| Vendor | Hebbia | LegalFly |
| Status | Active | Active |
| Price path | Contact sales: No public price was located in the checked vendor source. | Contact sales: No public price was located in the checked vendor source. |
| Confidentiality statement | “Never trained on your data. Your documents, prompts, and outputs are never used to train Hebbia's models or any model provider we work with.” | “How does LEGALFLY protect confidential data? All documents are anonymised before processing and encrypted at rest and in transit.” |
| Training or data-use statement | No-training commitment: “Never trained on your data. Your documents, prompts, and outputs are never used to train Hebbia's models or any model provider we work with.” | No-training commitment: “LEGALFLY embeds security at every stage - anonymizing data before use, isolating environments per client, and maintaining data ownership throughout.” |
| Firm-size scope | Not stated | Not stated |
| Named connections | Not stated | Not stated |
| Data location | Encrypted at rest & in transit. Hebbia lists ISO/IEC 42001:2023, SOC 2 Type 2, ISO 27001:2022, GDPR, and CCPA. | Single tenant. A dedicated, isolated instance of LEGALFLY deployed in your preferred Azure region to meet your data residency requirements. |
| Last checked | September 21, 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 | Hebbia | LegalFly |
|---|---|---|
| Reading the vendor's wording | The vendor states that documents, prompts, and outputs are never used to train its models or any model provider it works with, and lists ISO 42001, SOC 2 Type 2, and ISO 27001. The no-training statement is one of the most direct in the directory. | The vendor states that all documents are anonymised before processing and encrypted at rest and in transit, and that it aligns with ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type II, and GDPR. Anonymising before processing is a structural choice rather than a policy promise. |
| What adopting it costs | It is an analysis surface rather than a system of record, so adopting it does not replace matter management. The switching cost is low, though the value depends on having large document sets to analyse. | It is a review tool, so adopting it does not require moving contracts into a new repository. Single-tenant deployment is offered, which may be tied to a higher tier that the checked source does not clarify. |
| Closest alternative | LegalFly — The contract-review alternative. This one analyses large document sets; that one reviews contracts with anonymisation. | Luminance — The other single-tenant option. This one anonymises before processing; that one states dedicated single-tenant isolation. |