Everlaw and Relativity aren't really competing for the same buyer, even though they get lumped together in every "best eDiscovery software" listicle. Relativity is the incumbent — it's been the backbone of large-scale document review since the mid-2000s, and most AmLaw 100 litigation support departments and legal service providers already have RelativityOne workflows baked into their processes. Everlaw is the newer, cloud-native challenger that built its reputation on a cleaner interface and faster onboarding, and it's won real market share at mid-size firms and government agencies (including a large DOJ deployment) that got tired of Relativity's complexity and cost structure.
The comparison matters because eDiscovery platform choice isn't a decision you revisit every year. Migrating a live case's document set, coding history, and privilege log between platforms mid-litigation is expensive and risky, so firms tend to pick once and stay for a decade. That makes the up-front evaluation — cost per GB, admin overhead, AI review capability, integration with your existing stack — worth getting right rather than defaulting to whichever platform your opposing counsel or vendor already uses.
This isn't a "one is objectively better" comparison. It's a "which one matches your case volume, technical staff, and budget" comparison, and we'll be specific about where each one actually wins rather than hedging.
Side-by-Side Comparison
| Feature | Everlaw | Relativity |
|---|---|---|
| Feature | Everlaw | Relativity |
| Starting price | ~$45-75/GB/mo hosting (custom quote) | ~$50-90/GB/mo hosting (custom quote) |
| Free trial | No (demo only) | No (demo only) |
| Mobile app | No | No |
| Time tracking | Basic | Basic |
| Client portal | Basic | Basic |
| Integrations | 20+ integrations | 100+ integrations |
| Document storage | Included | Included |
| Support | Phone+chat | Phone+chat |
Pricing structure and total cost of ownership
Neither platform posts public pricing, which is itself a signal — both are enterprise sales motions with quotes built around data volume, user count, and matter complexity. Relativity's licensing has historically run through a partner/reseller network (law firms often access it via a litigation support vendor rather than direct from Relativity), which adds a markup layer but also means you're not staffing the hosting and administration yourself unless you buy RelativityOne direct. Everlaw sells direct-to-firm and bundles hosting, so the quote you get is closer to an all-in number. In practice, firms report Relativity running more expensive at scale because of per-GB processing fees, analytics add-ons (like Structured Analytics or Trace), and the admin/training overhead of a more complex platform. Everlaw's per-GB storage is often cheaper for small-to-mid case sizes (under 500GB), but the gap narrows or reverses at multi-terabyte scale where Relativity's enterprise discounting kicks in. Get quotes for your actual expected data volume — a 50GB employment case and a 5TB antitrust matter will price completely differently on both platforms.
AI-assisted review and analytics
This is where the platforms diverge most. Relativity's aiR for Review (its generative AI review tool, built on Azure OpenAI) and its long-standing Analytics/TAR 2.0 engine are mature, heavily validated in case law (Relativity's predictive coding has survived more discovery disputes and Daubert-style challenges than any competitor), and trusted by courts and opposing counsel because of that track record. Everlaw's AI features — Storybuilder, its own predictive coding, and its newer generative AI assistant — are well-regarded for usability but have a shorter litigation track record and less third-party case law validating them under scrutiny. If you're doing document review where TAR defensibility could become a discovery dispute (large commercial litigation, regulatory investigations), Relativity's precedent matters. If you're doing internal investigations or smaller matters where speed and ease of coding review batches matters more than court-tested defensibility, Everlaw's AI tools are faster to learn and use.
Learning curve and admin overhead
Relativity requires real expertise to run well. Workspace setup, field mapping, production sets, and analytics configuration are typically handled by a trained Relativity admin (there's an entire certification — RCA, Relativity Certified Administrator — because the platform is that involved). Most firms don't have this person on staff and instead outsource hosting/admin to a litigation support vendor, which is its own cost and dependency. Everlaw was built specifically to remove that layer — attorneys and paralegals can usually build a review workspace, run searches, and manage productions without a dedicated admin. For a firm without in-house litigation support staff, this difference alone can be the deciding factor: Everlaw gets a small litigation team self-sufficient in days, while Relativity often means either hiring an admin or staying dependent on an outside vendor for the life of every matter.
Integrations and ecosystem
Relativity's ecosystem is dramatically larger because it's older and more widely deployed — hundreds of processing tools, forensic collection platforms (like those from Cellebrite, Nuix, and Exterro), and litigation support vendors build directly to the Relativity API (RSAPI) as a default. If your firm already uses a specific forensic collection tool or a legal hold platform, it almost certainly has a native Relativity connector; the same is not guaranteed for Everlaw. Everlaw has grown its integration list steadily (including Slack, Microsoft 365, and Google Workspace collection) and covers the common cases well, but if you're running unusual or specialized forensic tooling, verify the Everlaw connector exists before assuming parity.
Who Should Choose Each
Choose Everlaw if you…
- A boutique or mid-size litigation firm (10-50 attorneys) without dedicated litigation support staff
- A government agency or regulatory office that needs attorneys to self-serve review without an admin layer
- A firm running internal investigations where speed of onboarding matters more than court-tested TAR precedent
- A firm that's been burned by Relativity's complexity on a past matter and wants a faster ramp-up
- A firm whose case volumes stay consistently under ~500GB per matter and wants simpler, more predictable pricing
Choose Relativity if you…
- An AmLaw 100 or large regional firm with an in-house litigation support department and Relativity-certified admins
- A firm handling multi-terabyte antitrust, mass tort, or complex commercial litigation where TAR defensibility could face a Daubert-style challenge
- A firm that already works with litigation support vendors or forensic collection tools built natively for the Relativity ecosystem
- A firm regularly opposing counsel or co-defendants who standardize on Relativity for joint document repositories
- A firm that needs the widest possible integration surface with e-discovery processing and forensic tools
Final Verdict
If your firm has in-house litigation support staff, handles large or high-stakes matters where TAR defensibility could be challenged, or already operates inside an ecosystem of Relativity-native vendors, Relativity is the right call despite the steeper learning curve and higher admin overhead — its maturity and case law track record are worth the complexity at that scale. It's the safer default for firms doing serious commercial litigation.
If you're a mid-size or boutique firm without dedicated e-discovery staff, or you're running internal investigations and smaller matters where getting attorneys self-sufficient quickly matters more than having the most court-tested TAR precedent, choose Everlaw — it will get your team productive faster and cost less to administer, even if its ecosystem and litigation track record are thinner. Don't pick either platform based on brand recognition alone; get a quote against your actual data volume and pilot a real matter's document set before signing a multi-year hosting contract.