Relativity vs. Everlaw vs. DISCO: Where the AI Charge Hides in eDiscovery Pricing

Unvarnished Reviews Research

Market Position: The Price Is Per GB, and the AI Is the Variable

eDiscovery is the process of collecting, processing, reviewing and producing electronic documents for litigation, investigations and regulatory requests. Review is the largest cost; Everlaw's blog, citing the American Bar Association, says document review accounts for more than 80% of litigation spend. The three platforms here compete for that work, and each is sold to law firms, corporate legal teams and, for Relativity and Everlaw, government agencies.

Relativity is the incumbent with the most scale claims and the longest history. It confidentially submitted a draft registration statement for a proposed initial public offering of Class A common stock in March 2026, and Silver Lake's 2021 investment valued it at $3.5 billion. Everlaw is the best-rated of the three and publishes no financial results. DISCO is publicly traded (NYSE: LAW), reported second-quarter 2026 revenue of $43.1 million, up 13%, and a GAAP net loss of $8.7 million.

The finding that should change how any of the three gets budgeted: user fees are gone, so the bill is data volume, and the AI is where the vendors now differ. Relativity says aiR Assist, aiR Review, Privilege and Case Strategy need no separate AI licenses and no per-user AI fees, with AI covered by the committed data volume. DISCO says Cecilia AI and its agentic AI are included at no extra charge, with Auto Review priced per document. Everlaw includes single-document AI actions and its Writing Assistant, and charges credits or usage for batch AI actions and Deep Dive, with unused committed credits expiring at the end of the term. A buyer comparing three per-GB quotes without asking about AI is comparing different products.

What Each Platform Does

All three are cloud platforms that ingest documents and email, process them for search, let reviewers code and redact them, and produce them to the other side. They differ in how much else they bundle, where they are hosted, and how they charge for AI. The descriptions below come from the vendors' pages, so they show what the vendors say, not what independent testing found.

Relativity

Relativity's cloud platform is RelativityOne, which the vendor's current pages present under the Relativity aiR name. It is built on Microsoft Azure and sold to boutique, large and plaintiff law firms, government agencies, corporations and cyber insurers. The subscription includes processing, analytics, Review Center, Redact, automated workflows, audio and video transcription, email thread visualization and near-duplicate detection. Its AI tools include aiR Assist, aiR Review, Privilege and Case Strategy, with a conversational tool, claiR, listed as coming soon.

Data Breach Response, Translate, Relativity FOIA and Legal Hold are separately licensed add-ons. Relativity makes scale claims, including 36 billion documents in aiR, a largest workspace of 174 million documents and more than 5 petabytes of auto-scaling capacity; these are the vendor's figures. It says 85% of its customers have moved to the cloud and that, by 2028, all new matters and workspaces will be hosted in the cloud product, with limited exceptions. Existing Server matters remain supported. A separate FedRAMP-certified offering, Relativity aiR Government, serves government customers.

Everlaw

Everlaw is a cloud-native platform hosted on Amazon Web Services. It lists SOC 2 Type 2, SOC 3, FedRAMP Moderate, GovRAMP Moderate, Cyber Essentials Plus, ISO 27001, 27017 and 27018, and GDPR and CCPA support, with AES-256 encryption at rest. Its security page does not specify data residency regions.

Its AI includes Deep Dive, which handles natural language queries over very large sets, a Writing Assistant, coding suggestions and review assistance with citations back to the documents. Everlaw claims processing of up to 1 million documents an hour and says its pricing is based mainly on the data hosted, with unlimited users and uploads. These are vendor claims, and Everlaw offers no independent benchmark for them.

DISCO

DISCO sells a unified litigation platform that combines eDiscovery, its Cecilia AI, timelines and deposition management, previously sold separately as Case Builder, and legal hold. Cecilia answers natural language questions, summarizes depositions and generates timelines. Auto Review is a generative AI first-pass review that DISCO says runs at up to 32,000 documents an hour, with recall and precision 10% to 20% above the industry average; both are the vendor's claims.

DISCO announced its all-inclusive platform on February 25, 2026, with one per-GB price on processed data and no ingest fees. Its page lists regional login portals for the US, Canada and the EU but does not describe hosting or list certifications. DISCO says Am Law 200 firms use it.

How the Three Differ

The practical differences are three. Relativity is the largest and has the most modules, which suits big matters and government work, but it also has the most add-ons to price. Everlaw is the best-rated and the easiest to operate according to its reviews, and it is the one that meters batch AI. DISCO bundles the most into one price and is the smallest and least profitable of the three. Price does not separate them in public, because none publishes a rate card. The sections that follow show what is reported and what a per-GB model implies.

Relativity: The Upside

Users rate it well and praise its range. Relativity scores 4.5 of 5 across about 650 reviews. The top pros are ease of use (81 mentions), innovation and evolution (64), flexibility and powerful customization (60) and speed across the document review lifecycle (50). Excellent customer support is mentioned 31 times.

The model is simpler than it was. Per-seat user fees were replaced by a single data fee, and the AI tools are described as covered by committed data volume. The vendor's scale claims, including a 174 million document workspace, are the largest of the three, though they are not independently tested.

Relativity: The Downside

Performance is the top complaint. Performance issues, including slow data processing and limited control, are the most-cited con with 65 mentions, followed by a difficult learning curve (35), slow performance and latency (29), bugs and navigation problems (28) and limited features (27). Expensive pricing with limited transparency is cited 26 times.

Cost is not published and the modules add up. The vendor lists no rate. Data Breach Response, Translate, FOIA and Legal Hold are separate licenses. Relativity says that by 2028 all new matters will be hosted in its cloud product, so a team on Relativity Server faces a migration on the vendor's timetable.

Everlaw: The Upside

It has the highest rating and the most reviews. Everlaw scores 4.7 of 5 across about 750 reviews. Users call it straightforward to operate (78 mentions), cite responsive support (47) and an intuitive interface (38), and say reviewers are productive with minimal training (22).

The price model is plain. Core features, including processing, imaging, redaction, predictive coding, onboarding, training and support, plus unlimited users, are listed as included in the per-GB rate. Administrators can set total spend and spend per matter.

Everlaw: The Downside

Search and learning curve draw complaints. A steep learning curve is cited 44 times across two themes, weak search functionality 38 times across two themes, performance problems affecting search and documents 18 times, and confusing navigation 15 times. High cost is cited 13 times.

Batch AI is metered, and leaving has a fee. Batch AI actions and Deep Dive require credits or usage-based charges, and unused committed credits expire at the end of the term. A managed export carries a one-time professional services fee based on size, plus media and shipping at cost.

DISCO: The Upside

The price promise is the simplest. DISCO's February 2026 platform puts eDiscovery, Cecilia AI, timelines, depositions and its agentic AI in one per-GB price on processed data with no ingest fees. Hold is included in the per-GB rate with unlimited requests, users and custodians.

Users rate it highly. DISCO scores 4.6 of 5 across about 170 reviews. Its listing shows an average discount of 9%, a typical implementation of 3 months and a return on investment in 15 months.

DISCO: The Downside

It is the smallest of the three and loses money. DISCO's second-quarter 2026 revenue was $43.1 million against a GAAP net loss of $8.7 million, and its full-year 2026 outlook shows an adjusted EBITDA loss of $5 million to $8 million on revenue of $172 million to $179 million. It reports 354 customers above $100,000 in trailing 12-month revenue. A buyer committing to a multi-year contract should ask about continuity and data-return terms.

Evidence and disclosure are thinner. The review base is about 170 reviews, and a mention-level breakdown of its pros and cons was not available at publication. The page reviewed lists no certifications or hosting details, and Auto Review is priced per document at an unpublished rate.

Platform Ratings at a Glance

The three rate within 0.2 points of each other, and Everlaw leads on both rating and review count. Counts differ by a few reviews between G2 pages, so the figures are approximate. The ratings do not settle the choice; the cost, AI terms and exit terms below matter more.

Pricing (October 2026)

None of the three publishes a per-GB rate or a plan price. The table describes each vendor's stated billing model; the only dollar figures below come from a third-party aggregator and are unconfirmed by Relativity.

One pricing aggregator reports Relativity pay-as-you-go at $7.60-$14 per GB per month, discounts of up to 25% on a Flex commitment, and an AI review charge of about $0.20-$0.25 per document. The aggregator's worked examples do not add up and it labels its data indicative, so these figures are weak. The per-document AI charge also conflicts with Relativity's statement that its AI tools need no separate license, so ask Relativity which applies.

TCO Comparison: A 500 GB Matter, 12 Months, by Rate

No vendor publishes the rate, so no total is modeled for any platform, because building one from third-party estimates would present guesses as data. The arithmetic of per-GB billing is the finding: every $1 per GB per month moves the annual bill by $12 per GB. The table shows that sensitivity for three matter sizes, and the one reported Relativity range for reference.

The reported range is one aggregator's estimate, not a quote, and it covers a monthly hosting rate only. Processing, AI and add-ons are extra or included depending on the vendor. Everlaw and DISCO have no reported figures worth using. A buyer should ask each vendor to price the same matter on the same terms: gigabytes processed, gigabytes hosted by month, months retained, AI actions expected and users, and then compare totals.

What a quote has to state to be comparable

Costs the Pricing Table Misses

• Batch AI at Everlaw. Batch AI actions and Deep Dive require credits or usage-based charges, and unused credits expire at the end of the term. A team that buys too few pays more, and a team that buys too many loses the surplus.
• Auto Review per document at DISCO. The first-pass review is priced per document at an unpublished rate. If DISCO's speed claim of 32,000 documents an hour is right, a million-document review runs about 31 hours, so the per-document rate matters more than the speed.
• A per-document AI charge at Relativity. One aggregator reports about $0.20-$0.25 per document for aiR for Review, which would be $200,000-$250,000 for a million documents, while Relativity says AI carries no separate license. The figure is unconfirmed, and the conflict is worth settling in writing before signing.
• Add-on modules. Relativity licenses Data Breach Response, Translate, FOIA and Legal Hold separately.
• Hosting duration. A per-GB monthly rate bills every month a matter stays open, so a matter that lingers for years costs more than the same data held for months. Cold storage and archive pricing is not published by any of the three.
• Professional services. DISCO lists four service levels, from self-service to an enterprise managed service, with no prices. Everlaw includes onboarding and training in the per-GB rate.
• Export on exit. Everlaw charges a one-time professional services fee based on export size, plus a drive from $19.99 for 128 GB to $129.99 for 5 TB and shipping at cost. See the next section.

Exit and Switching Costs

• Everlaw: a fee, and history that does not come back. A managed export is requested through a form with a cost estimate and carries a one-time professional services fee based on data size. Re-uploading to another system will not keep document history, production access logs or project-level user history, and Everlaw does not retain the export's contents. The page does not say how long platform data is kept after a contract ends.
• Relativity: terms not published on the pages reviewed. Import and export is listed as a product capability, but fees, formats and post-termination retention are not stated. Ask what a full export of documents, coding, privilege logs and analytics indexes costs, and how long data is retained after termination.
• DISCO: terms not published on the pages reviewed. Ask whether work product, timelines and deposition annotations export in a usable format, and what continuity and data-return commitments apply given the vendor's size.
• Commitments lock volume. Relativity offers savings for 1-year and 3-year commitments, and Everlaw credits expire at term end. Ask for a ramp-down right if a matter ends early.

Complexity Comparison

Red Flags

Each finding below is sourced and material enough to influence a purchasing decision.

The Decision Framework

Choose Relativity if:

• You run large or complex matters, government work, or need the widest module list, and you have a written data fee that states what the AI tools cost.
• You have priced the add-ons you need and tested performance on a representative workspace.
• You have price protection and renewal terms that account for the pending public offering.

Choose Everlaw if:

• You want the highest-rated, easiest-to-operate platform and can estimate your batch AI and Deep Dive use before buying credits.
• You have tested search on your data and confirmed export fees and terms in writing.
• You want unlimited users included in the per-GB rate.

Choose DISCO if:

• You want AI included in one per-GB price and accept a smaller, less profitable vendor.
• You have the per-document Auto Review rate, the security reports and the data-return terms in writing.
• You have verified references from teams with matters like yours.

Key Decision Factors

Design decides what you are buying. Relativity is the broadest platform with add-on modules and the largest scale claims. Everlaw is the best-rated cloud-native platform with metered batch AI. DISCO is a bundled platform with AI included and the smallest base.

Audience decides which one fits. Relativity suits large or complex matters and government work that want the widest toolset. Everlaw suits cloud-first litigation teams that want the highest-rated, easiest-to-operate platform and can budget AI credits. DISCO suits teams that want AI included in one per-GB price and accept a smaller vendor.

The AI terms decide the bill, and the Red Flags decide what to ask. All three price by data volume with no user fees, and none publishes a rate. Relativity and DISCO say AI is included, Everlaw meters batch AI, and a 500 GB matter moves $6,000 a year for every $1 per GB per month, so ask each vendor to price the same matter, including AI actions, and treat any blog figure as unconfirmed. Relativity's top complaint is performance and its Server customers face a 2028 cloud deadline, Everlaw's are search, learning curve and a fee to export, and DISCO's are size, losses and thin disclosure. No platform here is perfect: Relativity trades simplicity for breadth, Everlaw trades predictable AI cost for ease of use, and DISCO trades vendor strength for an inclusive price. Get the AI terms, export fees and renewal caps in writing and run a pilot on a real matter.

The Bottom Line

• A team with large or complex matters should choose Relativity and get the data fee, the AI terms and the add-on prices in writing, with a pilot on performance.
• A cloud-first litigation team that wants ease of use should choose Everlaw and estimate its batch AI credits and export terms before signing.
• A team that wants one inclusive price should choose DISCO and insist on the per-document rate, security reports and data-return terms.