HAQQ vs general LLMs
ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini give you a capable model; HAQQ builds the legal system around one, working out the jurisdiction, retrieving the law and your matter, and citing its sources before it answers.
Capability by capability
Ratings describe each category as a whole, and HAQQ is rated against the category on this page, so a row can read differently on another page. Individual products vary, which is why each one also has its own comparison.
| Capability | HAQQ | General LLMs |
|---|---|---|
| Grounded in real law (statutes + case law) | Full capability | Partial / limited |
| Jurisdiction-aware legal logic | Full capability | Not supported |
| Drafting & contract review | Full capability | Partial / limited |
| Legal research (citations) | Full capability | Partial / limited |
| Matter management & billing | Full capability | Not supported |
| Native Arabic & MENA | Full capability | Partial / limited |
| Mobile app for clients | Full capability | Partial / limited |
| Client-ready, billable output | Full capability | Not supported |
Where HAQQ differs
- 01
Jurisdiction before generation
Before a model writes anything, HAQQ works out which jurisdiction governs the question and what language that law is written in. Asked about termination notice, a general assistant may not know whether you mean the UAE, France or Ontario, and can answer with the same confidence either way.
- 02
Answers you can check
HAQQ retrieves the statutes, case law and matter documents that bear on the question, checks its output against them and attaches citations you can open.
- 03
The practice around the answer
HAQQ pairs research, drafting and review with eFirm, its practice management system, so the legal work and the matter it belongs to are handled in one place.
- 04
Many models, one system
HAQQ can route different parts of a legal task to different models based on what each is good at, so a stronger model makes HAQQ stronger rather than redundant.
Where general LLMs are strong
What this category does well. If these matter most to you, it may be the better fit.
Capable, and improving fast
ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini are exceptionally capable general models, and they improve every quarter.
Easy to start
Free tiers and published pricing make them easy to try, and they can already draft and summarise.
Long documents, inside familiar tools
General assistants handle long documents and draft in a natural tone, and some work inside the office tools lawyers already use.
Compare one product at a time
Feature-by-feature comparisons with individual products in this category.
Also compared
Straight answers
Is HAQQ just a wrapper around ChatGPT?
No. A third-party frontier model performs the final generation. Everything that decides what that model is asked, what it is given to work with and whether its output is allowed through is HAQQ's: intent and jurisdiction resolution, legal retrieval, matter context, model routing, guardrails, grounding and citation.
If general models keep improving, does HAQQ still matter?
Better models make HAQQ better. The layers that carry the legal value run independently of any one model, so a stronger or cheaper model is something HAQQ adopts rather than something that replaces it. Jurisdictional grounding, your firm's own knowledge, matter isolation and citations you can open do not arrive with a model release.
Can I just prompt a general model carefully instead?
You can get a long way, and plenty of lawyers do. What careful prompting cannot give you is a verified legal corpus behind the answer, enforcement of the jurisdiction you named, your matter documents in context or a record of what was consulted. Those are properties of a system, not of a prompt.
Compare another category
- Legal AIHarvey, CoCounsel, Legora and Spellbook, compared task by task.
- Practice ManagementClio, Litify and Intapp, against eFirm plus HAQQ's legal AI.
- Consumer Legal AppsDoNotPay, LegalZoom and AI Lawyer, against HAQQ for individuals.
- Whole LandscapeAll four categories and every head-to-head comparison, on one page.