Comparison: why lawyers should use a source-based solution like iureka instead of ChatGPT for legal research.
AI Legal Research vs. ChatGPT
Comparison: why lawyers should use a source-based solution like iureka instead of ChatGPT for legal research.
What lawyers need
- Traceable citations
- Current German legal sources
- Verifiability before filing
- Path into vault & DOCX
ChatGPT & similar
- Strong drafting help
- No guarantee of real citations
- No integrated German legal corpus
- No Source Viewer / vault workflow
Source-bound research
- Tools for cases, statutes, BT docs
- Source Viewer on the original
- Explorer + agents + jobs
- Review duty stays with the lawyer
ChatGPT and iureka both use large language models — but legal research requirements are fundamentally different.
At a glance
| Criterion | ChatGPT | iureka |
|---|---|---|
| Legal database | No (knowledge cutoff) | 680,000+ cases, 145,000 statutes, etc. |
| Cited sources | Unreliable / no guarantee | References with document viewer |
| Currency | Model-dependent | Daily updated data sources |
| Confidential client data | Depends on usage policies | Beta — do not upload confidential data |
| DOCX / vault / agents | No | Integrated |
Beta notice
iureka is currently in beta. Please do not upload confidential information or client matter data.
When ChatGPT makes sense
- General wording help without legal context
- Brainstorming on non-legal topics
- Quick summaries without citation requirements
When iureka is the better choice
- Case law and statute research with verifiable sources
- Client work with confidentiality requirements
- Recurring research workflows via agents
- Working with your own documents in vaults
Conclusion
ChatGPT is a versatile language tool. iureka is a legal research platform — built for lawyers who must substantiate their results.
Try iureka
Start with AI legal research — anonymously on the homepage or with a free account.