Eve vs InQuery
If you are weighing alternatives, Eve is built for plaintiff firms and InQuery is built for claims and legal teams. The choice turns on the output you need and how each prices it. Medrecords AI adds a third option: per-page record review with cited deliverables.
Key takeaways
- Eve is a plaintiff law firm ai product for plaintiff firms. It is best known for ai platform for plaintiff firms with a strong g2 rating.
- InQuery is a medical-legal case intelligence product for claims and legal teams. It is best known for ai-native operating system for medical-legal case intelligence.
- Both publish their citation approach differently: Eve says source-linked work product per its site, while InQuery says not stated.
- Pricing is the fastest filter: Eve is not published and InQuery is not published.
- Medrecords AI is the third option: per-page pricing, source-linked output and a drafted chronology, demand or report from the same record set.
Side by side
Vendor pages read 20 Oct 2026AI platform for plaintiff firms with a strong G2 rating.
AI-native operating system for medical-legal case intelligence.
What is Eve?
Eve is a plaintiff law firm ai product for plaintiff firms. Its published scope covers case work, demands and firm-wide ai. It works with medical and legal records and describes its citation position as source-linked work product per its site. On security it lists hipaa noted on its site; reports over 200,000 cases supported.. The company was founded in 2024; its public funding and headcount position is $164m total; latest $103m series b at a $1b+ valuation, per tracxn and its announcement. and not published.. It is the better fit when plaintiff firms wanting a full platform.
What is InQuery?
InQuery is a medical-legal case intelligence product for claims and legal teams. Its published scope covers medical-legal case intelligence and record review. It works with medical records and describes its citation position as not stated. On security it lists hipaa noted on its site; 'backed by' section on the homepage.. The company was founded in Not published; its public funding and headcount position is about $3.1m, with y combinator among investors (pitchbook). and 7 employees (pitchbook).. It is the better fit when teams handling complex claims.
Company snapshot
Funding, headcount, traffic, reviews and security from third-party sources, linked where published.
Where reviewers praise and complain
Independent reviews, where the vendor is listed, in reviewers' own terms. Ratings are point-in-time.
- Fast processing: up to 25 files in 5-10 minutes, per a Reddit user
- 4.9/5 on G2 and $164M raised
- Requires upfront configuration
- About $350 per case, per a Reddit user
- One user says it cannot process more than 25,000 pages
- Y Combinator-backed medical-legal case intelligence
- HIPAA
- No published pricing
- No review listing
What Medrecords AI customers say
Customer calls, shared with permissionThese are Medrecords AI customers, not independent reviewers. Quotes come from recorded demos and customer calls, shared with permission.
“I have 12 AI medical record review vendors down here. And of them, this is the one I'm choosing to go with. Number one is the quality of the product. The second is that the cost makes sense.”
“Even an hour to process a full case file is super fast. I was worried it might take 2 or 3 days.”
“It's so refreshing to pay per use instead of a year-long contract. Pretty game-changing.”
- Pay per page, not per seat or month: 10 cents down to 5 cents at volume, duplicates free.
- Every finding links to its source page, including DICOM imaging.
- First case is free on us, with no page cap and no card.
Where they are cited
Eve: a16z and Artificial Lawyer covered its $103M Series B; r/legaltech users compare it with EvenUp and Supio.
InQuery: PitchBook lists about $3.1M raised with Y Combinator among investors.
How Eve and InQuery differ
Eve is a plaintiff law firm ai product for plaintiff firms, with a scope that covers case work, demands and firm-wide ai. InQuery is a medical-legal case intelligence product for claims and legal teams, with a scope that covers medical-legal case intelligence and record review. If those 2 descriptions point at different teams, the decision is mostly about which team owns the file, not which feature list is longer.
On pricing, Eve is not published, while InQuery is not published. On citations, Eve: source-linked work product per its site. InQuery: not stated. Ask both for a sample where a finding opens the underlying record page, then price the same file.
Feature by feature
Demand and drafting
Eve covers case work, demands and firm-wide ai. InQuery covers medical-legal case intelligence and record review. If one of those scopes is the exact output your team hands to counsel, that is the faster starting point. If both can produce it, compare the draft, the template flexibility and how many edits the attorney still has to make.
Medical records and chronologies
Ask both to process the same messy record set, including scans, duplicates, handwritten notes and missing pages. Eve works with medical and legal records and says source-linked work product per its site. InQuery works with medical records and says not stated. The output that survives the source-link check is the one worth a contract.
Pricing and contract
Eve is not published. InQuery is not published. Neither comparison should stop at the monthly figure. Ask whether pricing is per user, case, demand, page or custom; whether revisions and human review are included; whether there are page limits or overages; and what onboarding costs in staff time.
Security and data handling
Eve lists hipaa noted on its site; reports over 200,000 cases supported.. InQuery lists hipaa noted on its site; 'backed by' section on the homepage.. Ask for the BAA, the DPA, where data is stored, how long it is retained, and whether client data is used for model training. A security page is a starting point, not the contract.
Workflow fit
Eve is the better fit when plaintiff firms wanting a full platform. InQuery is the better fit when teams handling complex claims. Medrecords AI is the better fit when the job is a cited chronology plus a drafted demand, IME report or deposition summary, without a platform migration.
Questions to ask on a demo
- Can we run a real or redacted case, not a vendor sample?
- How does the tool handle scans, duplicates, handwritten notes and missing pages?
- Does every chronology entry open the source page and line?
- What is included in the quoted price, and what is billed extra?
- Are revisions and human review included?
- What is the turnaround for a 2,000-page file?
- Which certifications and BAAs are available, and where is data stored?
- Is client data used for model training?
- What export formats are supported?
- What does onboarding require from our team?
Red flags
- The demo never shows messy records.
- The chronology has no source links.
- Pricing stays vague after 2 calls.
- There is no clear answer on PHI, BAAs or retention.
- Revisions or human review are billed without notice.
- The platform solves a different team's problem.
How to test both on one file
- Upload the same record set to Eve, InQuery and Medrecords AI.
- Open the source link behind one chronology entry or summary line in each output.
- Compare the draft you would send to counsel, then compare the bill for the same page count.
This is the fastest way to tell a records service from a software platform. The output that survives the citation check is the one worth a contract.
Migration and switching
Switching between Eve, InQuery and Medrecords AI is less about data export than about trust. Ask each vendor for a named onboarding contact, a sample migration plan, the export formats and a go-live date. Then re-run 3 representative files, including one messy record set, and compare the chronology, the citations and the bill before you cancel anything. A migration that saves a subscription but loses the source trail is not a saving.
Keep the old tool live until one real file has passed the citation check. That single test tells you more than a migration deck, because it shows how the new vendor handles the records your team actually receives.
Plaintiff firms wanting a full platform.
Teams handling complex claims.
You need a cited chronology and a drafted demand package, IME report or deposition summary from a record set, with published per-page pricing and a free first case.
Where Medrecords AI fits
Medrecords AI is not a replacement for Eve when you need a plaintiff law firm ai platform, or for InQuery when you need a medical-legal case intelligence platform. It is the third option for the record-review step: upload a record set, get a source-linked chronology and a drafted demand package, IME report or deposition summary, then review, revise and sign it.
That matters when the bottleneck is the file rather than the firm. Medrecords AI publishes its price at 10 cents per deduplicated page, falling to 5 cents at volume, with duplicates free. It reads PDFs, scans, handwriting and DICOM imaging. First case is free on us, with no page cap and no card.
Eve vs InQuery: common questions
Which is better, Eve or InQuery?+
They do different jobs. Eve is built for plaintiff firms, while InQuery is built for claims and legal teams. Pick the one whose buyer and output match your file, then test both on the same record set.
How do Eve and InQuery price?+
Eve: Not published. InQuery: Not published. Medrecords AI publishes 10 cents per deduplicated page, falling to 5 cents at volume, with duplicates free.
Do Eve and InQuery cite every finding?+
Eve: Source-linked work product per its site. InQuery: Not stated. Medrecords AI links every AI answer and chronology entry to its source line.
Where does Medrecords AI fit?+
Medrecords AI reads the record, cites every finding and drafts the chronology, demand package, IME report or deposition summary. First case is free on us, no page cap and no card.
Which is better for medical chronologies, Eve or InQuery?+
It depends on the record set. Eve works with medical and legal records and InQuery with medical records. Ask each to produce a chronology from the same messy file and check the source links.
Which is better for demand packages, Eve or InQuery?+
Eve covers case work, demands and firm-wide ai. InQuery covers medical-legal case intelligence and record review. If one of those scopes is the demand workflow you need, start there; otherwise test both on the same file.
Read each vendor against Medrecords AI on the same buying rows.
Medrecords AI vs Eve →Medrecords AI vs InQuery →Bottom line
Choose Eve when plaintiff firms wanting a full platform. Choose InQuery when teams handling complex claims. Choose Medrecords AI when the job is a cited chronology plus a drafted demand, IME report or deposition summary, with published per-page pricing and a free first case.
The worst outcome is buying a platform for a problem your team does not have. Run one real file through each option, open the source behind one finding, and compare the draft you would send to counsel. Decide on the output, the citations and the bill, not the demo.
Sources
Vendor facts come from each vendor's own published pages, read 20 Oct 2026.
- eve.legal - vendor site
- inquery.ai - vendor site
- medrecords.ai/pricing - Medrecords AI page rate