Vincent AI vs Harvey AI: Pricing, Seat Floors and Which Firm Should Buy Which

Neither vendor publishes a price, and the seat floor decides the comparison before features do. Harvey is reported at roughly 1,000 to 2,000 dollars per seat per month with a minimum of 20 to 25 seats on a twelve-month term, which puts the entry ticket somewhere between 240,000 and 360,000 dollars a year. vLex publishes no Vincent AI figure, but the same Vincent engine sells through Clio Work at a reported 199 dollars per user per month from a single seat. A firm under twenty lawyers is not choosing between these two. It is choosing whether Vincent is worth 199, because Harvey will not sell to it.

Both vendor sites were checked on 15 September 2026. harvey.ai/pricing returns a 404, and so does an invented path on the same host, so we cannot tell from the site alone whether Harvey has a pricing page or simply blocks us; either way there is no published rate. vlex.com/pricing also returns a 404, but there an invented path returns the identical page, which is what lets us say the absence is genuine. Every figure below is labeled as published by the vendor, reported by a third party, or read from an independent benchmark, and the three are never merged.

What Vincent AI and Harvey AI actually cost

The reported Harvey figures deserve one more caveat than usual. They disagree with each other by a factor of two on the per-seat rate and by five seats on the floor, and several of the sites quoting them are competitors or comparison pages that copy from one another. The direction is not in doubt: Harvey is an enterprise contract with a six-figure entry point. The exact number is. We keep the longer version, including the reports that Am Law 100 firms pay a fraction of the mid-market rate per seat, on how much Harvey AI costs.

The seat floor is the real price

Per-seat numbers make these two look like they belong on the same shelf. They do not. Here is what the reported figures imply at three firm sizes, using Harvey's lower reported rate of 1,000 dollars a seat and the 25-seat floor most often quoted.

At five lawyers there is no comparison to make. At twenty-five the two are five times apart on the reported figures, and the question becomes what Harvey does that Vincent does not, which is a fair question with a real answer. At a hundred seats the reported Harvey per-seat rate drops enough that the gap could close, but nobody outside the two contracts can say by how much. That middle row is where this decision actually lives, and it is where the benchmark evidence matters most.

Legora sits between the two on the same ladder, with a reported floor near ten seats, and we work through that case in Vincent AI vs Legora pricing. The whole market lines up more sensibly by minimum purchase than by seat price, which is why our legal research pricing page sorts vendors that way.

The one benchmark both of them sat

Unlike most comparisons in this category, this one has independent evidence. The Vals Legal AI Report published on 27 February 2025 by Vals AI with Legaltech Hub evaluated CoCounsel, Vincent AI, Harvey Assistant and Oliver on seven tasks against a lawyer baseline. Vendors chose which tasks to enter. Harvey entered six, Vincent entered six, and five overlap. We read the report on vals.ai on 15 September 2026; these are its accuracy scores for the rows both products entered.

Harvey won all five shared rows, by margins from six points on extraction to twenty-two on document Q&A, and the report calls Harvey Assistant "the strongest-performing product in this study." On redlining the lawyers beat both tools comfortably, which the report reads as a limit of the tools at that date rather than a difference between them. Three caveats belong next to that table every time it is quoted. The products were tested as text generators through their assistant features, not through the interfaces lawyers use day to day. The report is nineteen months old, and both products have shipped a great deal since. And, most important for a research buyer, the one task that measures finding authority is not in the shared rows: Vincent opted into legal research and Harvey did not.

That last point cuts both ways. Legal research was held back from the first report and became its own study, the October 2025 Vals legal research benchmark, and vLex withdrew Vincent from that one before publication. So the product that sells itself on research has no current public research score, and the product that beat it on document tasks never entered research at all. We walk through the October study, where ChatGPT scored 77 against a lawyer baseline of 69, on Vincent AI vs ChatGPT.

What each one is actually for

The benchmark rows are a good map of the two products. Harvey's strengths are all document tasks: answering questions about a file, pulling fields out of it, summarizing it, working through a transcript. That is what a workflow platform for large transactional and litigation teams does, and the 2025 report notes that Harvey draws on multiple models, including custom fine-tuned ones built with OpenAI, with a single query involving between 30 and 1,500 model calls. Since then Harvey's chief executive has also been quoted on Anthropic's legal page saying Claude Opus 4.7 scored 90.9 percent on Harvey's own BigLaw Bench, so it is a multi-model product by design. You are paying for the orchestration, the firm-specific data handling and the security posture a 25-seat buyer requires, not for a model you could not rent yourself.

Vincent is research-first. vLex describes it as built on a legal database of over one billion documents from more than 100 countries, with every response citing primary sources, and it adds workflows such as comparing how a question resolves across jurisdictions. vLex lists SOC 2, ISO 27001 and zero-retention agreements with its model providers, though it does not name them. For a firm whose matters cross borders, that corpus is the product, and nothing on Harvey's public site claims an equivalent library.

So the practical split is simpler than the marketing suggests. If most of your spend will go on reviewing, extracting from and summarizing large document sets across a big team, Harvey is built for that and the benchmark says it is good at it. If the spend will go on finding and comparing authority, Vincent is the research tool of the two, sold through a door that costs 199 a seat instead of six figures. And at 25 seats or more, the honest first step is not a demo of either. It is a look at which seats the firm would actually fill, because a large legal AI contract is where unused SaaS seats quietly accumulate, and a floor you pay for but do not use is the most expensive line in this whole comparison.

Why the figures on the top-ranking comparison page are not usable

The page currently ranking first for this comparison quotes Vincent at around 79 dollars per user per month and describes a band up to several hundred. To its credit it labels these as estimates. But none of them can be traced to vLex, because vLex publishes nothing, and we confirmed that its missing pricing page is a genuine 404 rather than a bot block. The 79 dollar figure appears on several AI-written comparison sites in nearly identical wording, which is the usual sign of a number copied between pages until it looks like a fact. The only Vincent price with a named source is the Clio Work rate reported by LawNext, and we treat even that as reported rather than published, because clio.com blocks every request we make, including requests for pages that do not exist.

Is Vincent AI cheaper than Harvey AI?

For every firm under the Harvey floor, the question does not arise, because Harvey is not available at any price. For a firm of 25 to 50 lawyers, yes, by roughly five times on the reported figures: about 199 dollars per user per month through Clio Work against roughly 1,000 to 2,000 per seat for Harvey. Above 100 seats the reported Harvey per-seat rate falls and the gap may narrow, but neither vendor publishes a figure that would let anyone confirm it.

Does Harvey AI have a minimum number of seats?

Harvey does not say, and its site has no pricing page we can reach. Third-party write-ups consistently report a floor, most often 25 seats and sometimes 20, on a twelve-month term. Treat it as reported, but treat it as real: no small firm has publicly described buying a handful of Harvey seats, and the product is sold through enterprise sales rather than any self-serve route.

Is Harvey AI worth it?

For a large transactional or litigation practice that will fill 25 or more seats with document-heavy work, the 2025 Vals scores are the best public evidence that it does that work well, and the price is for the orchestration and governance around that, not for the model. For a research-first practice, or any firm under twenty lawyers, it is either the wrong tool or an unavailable one. Buy the corpus you will use at the seat count you have.

Where Cases fits, and where it does not

We are a case law search tool, not a workflow platform. You ask a legal question in plain English and get US federal and state decisions back, each with the holding and a citation you can open and read, for 29 dollars a month from a single seat with no demo. We do not review document sets, we do not draft, we are not a citator, and we do not carry an international corpus. For a solo or small firm whose real job is finding the case, that is the whole job. For a 25-seat firm choosing between Harvey and Vincent, we are the tool the associates use while procurement runs, and the reason to check every citation either platform hands you before it goes in a brief.

This is informational research, not legal advice. Prices drift; both vendor sites were read on 15 September 2026 and the reported figures carry their sources for that reason.