# Everlaw vs Relativity: which is better for bulk FOIA request processing and batch redaction?

<p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">Everlaw vs Relativity: which is better for bulk FOIA request processing and batch redaction? I compared both across the <a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/categories/public-records-management"><strong>public records management</strong></a> category for an agency evaluation, and I'll share the evidence honestly, including the part that surprised me: both platforms' recent review streams are overwhelmingly legal-industry eDiscovery voices, with government reviewers in the single digits, so the FOIA half of this question rests on capability evidence plus G2's guidance rather than on agency testimony. With that stated, here's how they compare:</p><ul>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/everlaw/reviews"><strong>Everlaw</strong></a> (4.7 stars, 738 reviews): The usability-first case, and its recent reviews are specific: a UI reviewers call friendlier than other platforms, processing speeds that make large data set uploads nearly painless, group coding with autosave, monthly updates that incorporate user input, and AI review features whose accuracy users describe improving release over release. G2's category guidance credits it with mass redaction as one of its most praised features and bulk processing through its AI integration. Its quality-of-support score, 9.5 against the category's 8.4 average, matters for agencies without eDiscovery specialists on staff. The recent cons: search and organization confuse new users, and partner-side feedback notes hearing that rivals price lower.</li>
<li>
<a class="a a--md" elv="true" href="https://www.g2.com/products/relativity/reviews"><strong>Relativity</strong></a> (4.5 stars, 653 reviews): The volume-machinery case: G2's guidance names it for very large datasets across distributed review teams, with email threading, near-duplicate detection, and batching as the mechanisms that shrink what humans must read, and recent reviews confirm the range, collection through production across investigations and regulatory requests, deep customization through objects and fields, and item-level permissions. The recent costs are equally consistent: performance issues lead its cons at page scale, with current reviews describing workspace slowdowns and freezing, many-click workflows, a dated core UI, expense, and a setup reviewers say sustains a specialist ecosystem because it favors technical staff over end users. Its support score sits at 8.3, just under the category average. The recent stream also includes an account of a team switching to Everlaw over reviewer experience, a single voice against 653, noted at that weight.</li>
</ul><p class="elv-tracking-normal elv-text-default elv-font-figtree elv-text-base elv-leading-base elv-font-normal" elv="true">My verdict on the question as asked: for batch redaction and bulk review where the people doing the work are records staff rather than litigation-support engineers, the current evidence favors Everlaw, on usability testimony, support scores, and the guidance's mass-redaction credit. For extreme-volume environments with dedicated technical staff, distributed teams, and existing Relativity expertise, Relativity's machinery is built for exactly that scale, and its cons are the operating cost of it. Either way, since neither product's G2 base speaks in FOIA officers' voices, make both vendors demo an actual FOIA workflow, intake to redacted production with the statutory clock visible, and require two government references processing public records today. Agencies running either for FOIA at volume, what did your monthly throughput actually look like, and who on staff runs the platform? Those answers are what this comparison's evidence base is missing.</p>

##### Post Metadata
- Posted at: 3 days ago
- Net upvotes: 1


## Comments
### Comment 1

&lt;p&gt;For a records team without dedicated eDiscovery specialists, Everlaw seems more practical because the interface and support reduce the operational burden of bulk review and redaction. Relativity makes more sense when monthly volume is extremely high and you already have technical staff who can manage the platform efficiently.&lt;/p&gt;

##### Comment Metadata
- Posted at: 2 days ago
- Author title: Marketer





## Related discussions
- [How well does Trello scale into a larger team?](https://www.g2.com/discussions/1-how-well-does-trello-scale-into-a-larger-team)
  - Posted at: about 13 years ago
  - Comments: 6
- [Can we please add a new section](https://www.g2.com/discussions/2-can-we-please-add-a-new-section)
  - Posted at: about 13 years ago
  - Comments: 0
- [Quantifiable benefits from implementing your CRM](https://www.g2.com/discussions/quantifiable-benefits-from-implementing-your-crm)
  - Posted at: about 13 years ago
  - Comments: 4