Best eDiscovery Software in 2026
Quick answer: No vendor on this page publishes a price, so every figure here is a reported one. The reported numbers put Relativity around $11 to $13 per GB a month on its newer bundles and $15 to $30 per GB once processing and support are added, DISCO at roughly $15 to $25 per GB a month, and Everlaw on a seat model near $95 to $150 per user a month with ingestion charged separately. The rate is not the decision. The billing model is: per-GB pricing means a case that collects badly costs several times what the same case costs after culling, and that difference dwarfs the gap between any two vendors here.
Comparison
| Tool | Score | Best for | Price | Key strength |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relativity | 9.4 | large, complex litigation with support staff | Reported ~$11 to $30 per GB/mo | The category standard, with the widest tooling around it |
| Everlaw | 8.5 | teams wanting predictable pricing over volume risk | Reported ~$95 to $150 per user/mo | Seat-based model caps volume exposure |
| DISCO | 7.7 | matters where processing speed is the constraint | Reported ~$15 to $25 per GB/mo | Fastest processing and search in practice |
| Logikcull | 6.7 | small matters handled without a specialist | No published price; 10GB minimum | Genuinely self-service |
| Reveal | 6.0 | investigations with heavy analytics needs | No published price | Analytics depth on unstructured collections |
| Casepoint | 5.2 | government and regulated work | No published price | Data handling and security posture |
Fit by buyer
Scored 1 to 5 for each buyer, where 5 means the tool was built for them and 1 means it is the wrong tool. Scope is different: it is how much of the job the tool does, from a single step to a whole lifecycle, and a low score there means narrow rather than bad. These ratings are the same for a tool wherever it appears; the score shown beside each entry is for this guide specifically. A tool can lead one column and come last in another, and the right answer still changes with who is asking. How we score.
| Tool | Lawyer in Word | In-house legal | Commercial team | Enterprise | Scope | Price |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relativity | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 5 | Reported |
| Everlaw | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 4 | Reported |
| DISCO | 1 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 4 | Reported |
| Logikcull | 1 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 2 | None |
| Reveal | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | None |
| Casepoint | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 4 | None |
Which one, for your situation
| If this is your situation | Start with |
|---|---|
| Large, complex litigation with a dedicated litigation support team | Relativity |
| A team that wants predictable seat pricing rather than volume risk | Everlaw |
| Speed of processing matters more than anything else | DISCO |
| Small matters, under 10GB, handled without a specialist | Logikcull |
| Investigations work with heavy analytics needs | Reveal |
| Government or regulated work with strict data handling | Casepoint |
The 6 leading eDiscovery platforms
1. Relativity: Best for large, complex litigation with support staff
9.4 out of 10 how this is calculated
The verdict: The platform most litigation support professionals already know, which matters because staffing a matter is easier when the tool is the one people have used. Depth and the range of third-party tooling are unmatched, and so is the assumption that somebody in-house knows how to drive it.
Pricing: No published price; the pricing page directs you to sales. Reported at approximately $11 to $13 per GB a month on newer bundles that include its AI features, and $15 to $30 per GB a month once processing, licensing and support are counted. Enterprise deployments are reported from $20,000 a year upwards.
Standout features:
- The widest range of third-party applications in the category
- Handles the largest and most complex matters
- Analytics and technology-assisted review built in
- Deep search and structured analytics
- Widest pool of trained users to hire from
Limitations: It assumes a litigation support function. A team without one will either pay a service provider to operate it or use a fraction of what they are buying. The per-GB model also means a poorly scoped collection costs several times a well-scoped one for identical review work.
2. Everlaw: Best for teams wanting predictable pricing over volume risk
8.5 out of 10 how this is calculated
The verdict: The seat-based core is the reason to look here. It moves a meaningful part of the cost from something you cannot forecast, which is how much data a matter turns out to hold, to something you can, which is how many people will review it.
Pricing: No published price; the pricing page offers a demo request only. Reported at roughly $95 to $150 per user a month, with data ingestion and hosting charged separately. Mid-market deployments are reported around $2,000 to $5,000 a month all in.
Standout features:
- Seat-based core pricing rather than pure volume
- Strong collaborative review and case-building tools
- Modern interface that non-specialists can learn
- Storyboarding and deposition preparation built in
- Predictive coding included rather than a module
Limitations: Ingestion and hosting are still charged on top, so the seat model caps volume exposure without removing it. Ask specifically what the data charges are, because a seat price quoted alone is not the bill.
3. DISCO: Best for matters where processing speed is the constraint
7.7 out of 10 how this is calculated
The verdict: Bought for speed, and it delivers it. When a matter turns on getting through a large set quickly, the difference between processing that finishes overnight and processing that finishes in three days is the whole value of the purchase.
Pricing: No published price. Its pricing page describes "a clear, per-GB pricing structure" without stating the rate. Reported at approximately $15 to $25 per GB a month.
Standout features:
- Processing and search noticeably faster than peers
- Straightforward interface with a short learning curve
- Per-GB billing described as simplified
- Strong for time-pressured productions
- Handles large collections without specialist tuning
Limitations: Pure per-GB billing carries the full volume risk. A case that collects broadly costs proportionally more with no seat cap to contain it. The page advertises pricing clarity without publishing the rate, which is a distinction worth noticing.
4. Logikcull: Best for small matters handled without a specialist
6.7 out of 10 how this is calculated
The verdict: The one platform here a small team can genuinely run alone: upload, cull, review, produce, without a litigation support specialist or a services engagement. For matters under roughly 10GB that self-sufficiency is worth more than the depth it lacks.
Pricing: No published price. Its pricing page describes an annual subscription with "fixed pricing" and a monthly pay-as-you-go plan billed per GB stored, but states neither rate. The only figure it publishes is a 10GB minimum threshold on pay-as-you-go. Third-party listings quote an entry point around $250 a month; we could not verify that against the vendor.
Standout features:
- True self-service with no vendor involvement per matter
- Automatic culling of duplicates and system files
- Short learning curve for non-specialists
- Pay-as-you-go option for occasional matters
- Fast setup on a new matter
Limitations: It is built for smaller matters and shows it above roughly 10GB, where the analytics depth of the larger platforms starts to matter. The published 10GB pay-as-you-go minimum also means very small matters carry a floor.
5. Reveal: Best for investigations with heavy analytics needs
6.0 out of 10 how this is calculated
The verdict: Strongest where the question is investigative rather than procedural: what happened, who knew, when. Analytics and concept clustering are the core rather than an added module, which suits internal investigations more than routine document production.
Pricing: No published price and no reliable reported figure we could source. Sales-led and quoted per matter or per deployment.
Standout features:
- Analytics and concept clustering at the core
- Strong on internal investigations and regulatory matters
- Handles varied and unstructured data types
- Visual analysis of communication patterns
Limitations: We could source no reliable pricing at all, so a buyer enters the process with no benchmark whatsoever. It is also more tool than a straightforward document production needs, and the analytics depth goes unused on routine matters.
6. Casepoint: Best for government and regulated work
5.2 out of 10 how this is calculated
The verdict: Chosen most often where data handling requirements decide the shortlist before capability does. Its position in government and heavily regulated work reflects security and hosting commitments rather than a feature advantage over the others here.
Pricing: No published price and no reliable reported figure we could source. Sales-led and quoted per deployment.
Standout features:
- Security and data handling posture suited to public bodies
- End-to-end platform from legal hold through production
- Legal hold and collection built in
- Established in government deployments
Limitations: No published or reliably reported price, and its strengths are largely procedural rather than about review quality. A commercial team choosing on capability alone would not usually arrive here first.
How we chose
- Is the price published, reported or unavailable? In this category the honest answer is that none of it is published.
- What is the billing unit: per GB hosted, per user, per matter, or a mix? This decides your bill far more than the rate does.
- What happens to cost when data volume spikes mid-matter, which is when budgets actually break?
- Can you cull before ingestion, since paying to host data you will never review is the most common avoidable spend here?
- Is it self-service or does every matter need vendor involvement?
- We did not score on review-model accuracy claims. Every vendor asserts one and none publish a methodology we could check.
Frequently asked questions
What is the best eDiscovery software in 2026?
Relativity for large, complex litigation where a support team exists to run it. Everlaw where predictable seat pricing matters more than depth. DISCO where processing speed is the constraint. Logikcull for matters under roughly 10GB handled without a specialist.
How much does eDiscovery cost?
Nobody in this category publishes a figure, which is why the reported ranges are wide. Relativity is reported at roughly $11 to $30 per GB a month depending on what is bundled, DISCO at $15 to $25 per GB, and Everlaw at $95 to $150 per user a month plus data charges.
Why does the billing model matter more than the rate?
Because volume is the variable you cannot forecast. Under per-GB billing, a case that collects 500GB and culls to 50GB still costs whatever the hosting terms say. Two vendors ten per cent apart on rate can be several times apart on the same matter depending on how each treats culled data.
What should we ask before signing?
What the per-GB rate covers and what sits outside it; whether culled and deduplicated data still incurs hosting; what happens if volume triples mid-matter; the minimum commitment; and the cost of getting data out at the end. Exit cost is the one most often left unasked.
Do we need a platform at all for a small matter?
Below roughly 10GB a self-service tool like Logikcull usually covers it without a specialist. Above that, or where analytics genuinely matter, the larger platforms earn their cost. The expensive mistake is buying enterprise capability for matters that never needed it.
Is per-user pricing better than per-GB?
It is more predictable, which is not the same as cheaper. Seat pricing suits a steady review team working through varied matters. Per-GB suits infrequent, well-scoped matters. Everlaw's seat-based core caps volume exposure but still charges ingestion and hosting separately, so ask for both figures.
Why is this category so opaque?
We checked every vendor on this page and not one publishes a rate. The common explanation is that data volume makes pricing genuinely case-specific, which is partly true and does not explain why no vendor publishes even a starting rate when contract and entity management vendors manage to.