Compare / Clay vs Harvey

Clay vs Harvey

Clay rates 61 against Harvey's 48 in this edition. The table lines up every dimension we record; the leading value in each numeric row is marked. Add a third or fourth entry.

Dimension	61of 100 ClayClay Labs	48of 100 HarveyHarvey (Counsel AI Corporation)
Rating
AgentsWisdom score	61	48
Confidence	medium	medium
Rank in category	No. 1 of 2	No. 2 of 2
Pillars
Adoption & momentum	82	43
Experts (independent reviews)	67	58
Crowd (community sample)	40	41
Community posts sampled	9	11
Experts vs crowd	Crowd cooler by 27	Crowd cooler by 17
Adoption
GitHub stars	n/e	n/e
npm weekly downloads	n/e	n/e
PyPI monthly downloads	n/e	n/e
VS Code installs	n/e	n/e
Reported users	n/e	100k
Reported customer organisations	17k	n/e
Releases, last 90 days	12	11
Benchmarks (shown, not scored)
Terminal-Bench 2.0	not listed	not listed
SWE-bench	not listed	not listed
Independent reviews	3	3
Trust & safety
Overall grade	B	A
Permission model	n/e	n/e
Data access scope	n/e	A
Data storage	B	B
Data retention & training	B	A
Incident history	A	A
Compliance	A	A
Transparency	B	B
Price
Price	Free, paid from $167	Custom
Plans	Free: Free Launch: $167 / monthly Growth: $446 / monthly Enterprise: Custom	Enterprise: Custom
Product
Category	Business & sales agents	Business & sales agents
Maker	Clay Labs	Harvey (Counsel AI Corporation)
Licence	proprietary	proprietary
Use it via	Web app, API, MCP server, CLI	Web app, Desktop app, Mobile app, API
Runs on	web	web, windows, macos
Models it drives	GPT, Claude, Gemini, Clay in-house models, open-weight models, bring your own API key	GPT, Claude, Gemini, Mistral, Harvey post-trained open-weight model
Key features	Waterfall enrichment across 100+ data providers Claygent AI web-research agent per table row Sculptor: build workflows from natural-language descriptions CRM sync (Salesforce, HubSpot) and HTTP API integrations Signals such as job changes and web intent API, CLI and MCP access for coding agents	Assistant for legal research and drafting with citations Vault for bulk document review and review tables Harvey Agent and custom agents, including in Word and Outlook Memory and Spaces (Harvey II) for matter context and personal preferences Playbooks for contract review Ethical-wall sync (Intapp) and role-based access controls Legal research content partnerships (e.g. LexisNexis, Wolters Kluwer)
Verdicts
Praised for	Waterfall enrichment gives higher contact coverage than single-source tools (HN commenter; Salesdorado review) Flexible table/workflow model valued by GTM engineers (Reddit, AI CMO review)	Microsoft 365 integrations and document grounding (Reddit in-house user; Lawyerist) Fast pace of agent features (Artificial Lawyer on Harvey II)
Criticised for	Credit costs rise quickly and the March 2026 pricing change drew criticism (Reddit, HN, GTM Daily) Steep learning curve for non-technical users (Reddit, Salesdorado) Reports of automations failing on larger lookups (Reddit)	High price relative to general-purpose LLMs (Reddit r/legaltech; Claude for Lawyers) Several practitioners report output quality that still needs heavy review (Reddit r/biglaw, HN)
Evidence
Evidence collected	26 Sept 2026	26 Sept 2026
Sources cited	5	4