InQuery vs Litify

By Ahmed Jemaa, Co-Founder & CEO of Medrecords AI · Updated 20 Oct 2026

If you are weighing alternatives, InQuery is built for claims and legal teams and Litify is built for law firms. 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

• 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.
• Litify is a legal practice management product for law firms. It is best known for practice management, intake and analytics on salesforce.
• Both publish their citation approach differently: InQuery says not stated, while Litify says not stated for record review.
• Pricing is the fastest filter: InQuery is not published and Litify is quote-based.
• 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

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.

What is Litify?

Litify is a legal practice management product for law firms. Its published scope covers practice management on salesforce, intake and analytics. It works with legal documents and describes its citation position as not stated for record review. On security it lists built on salesforce; reports 27k customers (getlatka).. The company was founded in 2016; its public funding and headcount position is $78.6m total; investors include tiger global, bessemer and fortress (startup intros). and 155-179 employees (getlatka and tracxn).. It is the better fit when firms standardized on salesforce.

These are Medrecords AI customers, not independent reviewers. Quotes come from recorded demos and customer calls, shared with permission.

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. Litify is a legal practice management product for law firms, with a scope that covers practice management on salesforce, intake and analytics. 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, InQuery is not published, while Litify is quote-based. On citations, InQuery: not stated. Litify: not stated for record review. Ask both for a sample where a finding opens the underlying record page, then price the same file.

Demand and drafting

InQuery covers medical-legal case intelligence and record review. Litify covers practice management on salesforce, intake and analytics. 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. InQuery works with medical records and says not stated. Litify works with legal documents and says not stated for record review. The output that survives the source-link check is the one worth a contract.

Pricing and contract

InQuery is not published. Litify is quote-based. 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

InQuery lists hipaa noted on its site; 'backed by' section on the homepage.. Litify lists built on salesforce; reports 27k customers (getlatka).. 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

InQuery is the better fit when teams handling complex claims. Litify is the better fit when firms standardized on salesforce. 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.

How to test both on one file

1. Upload the same record set to InQuery, Litify and Medrecords AI.
2. Open the source link behind one chronology entry or summary line in each output.
3. 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 InQuery, Litify 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.

Where Medrecords AI fits

Medrecords AI is not a replacement for InQuery when you need a medical-legal case intelligence platform, or for Litify when you need a legal practice management 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.

Bottom line

Choose InQuery when teams handling complex claims. Choose Litify when firms standardized on salesforce. 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.

More InQuery comparisons