Introduction (100–200 words)
Legal hold software helps organizations identify, notify, preserve, and track potentially relevant information when litigation, investigations, audits, or regulatory inquiries arise. In plain English: it’s the system that makes sure your company doesn’t delete or change evidence once you have a duty to preserve it.
It matters more in 2026+ because data is scattered across cloud suites, chat tools, mobile devices, and collaboration platforms, while regulators and courts expect faster, more defensible preservation—and better reporting. Manual processes (spreadsheets + email) are risky at modern scale.
Common use cases include:
- Litigation readiness for employment, contract, IP, and product disputes
- Regulatory inquiries (financial services, healthcare, privacy)
- Internal investigations (fraud, harassment, policy violations)
- M&A and disputes involving shared data rooms and collaboration tools
- Public sector and education records preservation
What buyers should evaluate:
- Custodian & matter management (roles, groups, org charts)
- Legal hold notices, acknowledgements, reminders, escalations
- Preservation coverage across email, files, chat, endpoints, archives
- Defensible audit trails & reporting
- Integrations with M365/Google Workspace, Slack/Teams, HRIS, IAM
- Automation (policy triggers, custodian mapping, workflows)
- eDiscovery handoff (collections, exports, review platform connections)
- Security controls (RBAC, SSO, audit logs, encryption)
- Scalability, performance, and global data residency needs
- Implementation effort, admin usability, and support quality
Best for: legal ops, in-house legal teams, compliance leaders, and IT/security teams at organizations that face recurring disputes or regulatory scrutiny—especially mid-market and enterprise companies in finance, healthcare, tech, manufacturing, and the public sector.
Not ideal for: very small teams with rare matters and minimal data sources; organizations that only need basic retention policies; or companies that already meet their obligations through an integrated archive/EDRM platform and don’t require separate legal hold workflows.
Key Trends in Legal Hold Software for 2026 and Beyond
- Hold coverage expanding beyond email/files to chat, meeting artifacts, collaborative docs, project tools, and modern work graphs (messages, reactions, edits, comments).
- AI-assisted scoping: suggested custodians, data sources, and time windows based on matter descriptions, prior matters, HR events, and communication patterns (with governance controls).
- Automation-first legal ops: templated playbooks, policy-based triggers (e.g., HR termination + complaint), auto-reminders, escalation chains, and SLA reporting.
- Convergence with eDiscovery and investigation platforms: tighter handoffs from hold → collection → processing → review, reducing rework and chain-of-custody gaps.
- Stronger defensibility expectations: immutable audit logs, proof of notice delivery/acknowledgment, repeatable workflows, and standardized reporting for courts/regulators.
- Identity-centric integration: deeper alignment with IAM (SSO, groups, SCIM), HRIS (joiner/mover/leaver), and device management to reduce missed custodians.
- Hybrid and multi-cloud realities: preservation spanning Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, on-prem file shares, archives, and niche SaaS tools—often in the same matter.
- Data minimization and privacy-by-design: limiting preserved scope, region-aware holds, and role-based access to reduce over-preservation and privacy exposure.
- Usage-based or modular pricing: cost tied to custodians, matters, or preserved data volume—plus premium add-ons for advanced automation and integrations.
- Operational resilience: improved performance for large custodian populations, high-volume notices, and cross-region governance with stricter uptime requirements.
How We Selected These Tools (Methodology)
- Prioritized tools with strong market adoption or mindshare in legal hold and adjacent eDiscovery workflows.
- Included products that represent different buyer profiles (SMB, mid-market, enterprise; IT-led vs legal-led).
- Favored platforms with end-to-end defensibility signals: auditability, workflow controls, and reporting.
- Considered integration coverage for common enterprise stacks (Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, Teams/Slack, archives, identity, and review platforms).
- Assessed feature completeness: notices/acknowledgements, custodian management, preservation, release workflows, and reporting.
- Looked for operational reliability indicators (enterprise deployment patterns, mature admin models), without relying on unverifiable claims.
- Considered security posture expectations (RBAC, SSO, encryption, audit logs) and transparency—marking unknowns as “Not publicly stated.”
- Aimed for a balanced list that can support legal + IT collaboration, not just legal workflows.
Top 10 Legal Hold Software Tools
#1 — Relativity Legal Hold
Short description (2–3 lines): Legal hold management within the broader Relativity ecosystem, designed to help legal teams notify custodians, track acknowledgements, and maintain defensible workflows. Often used by organizations that also run Relativity for eDiscovery.
Key Features
- Matter and custodian management with role-based workflows
- Legal hold notices with acknowledgements, reminders, and escalations
- Defensible audit trails for notice delivery and custodian actions
- Reporting dashboards for status, compliance, and exceptions
- Coordination with downstream eDiscovery processes (where applicable)
- Template-based communications to standardize holds
- Hold release workflows to document end-of-duty actions
Pros
- Strong fit when your organization already uses a Relativity-based eDiscovery workflow
- Mature workflow approach that supports defensibility and reporting
- Scales to larger custodian populations and recurring matters
Cons
- Can be heavier than needed for teams wanting a lightweight “hold-only” tool
- Implementation and change management may require admin expertise
- Full value often depends on broader ecosystem alignment
Platforms / Deployment
- Web
- Cloud / Varies / N/A (depends on product packaging and deployment choice)
Security & Compliance
- SSO/SAML: Not publicly stated
- MFA: Not publicly stated
- Encryption: Not publicly stated
- Audit logs: Yes (core to legal hold defensibility)
- RBAC: Not publicly stated
- SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR / HIPAA: Not publicly stated
Integrations & Ecosystem
Typically used alongside eDiscovery tooling and enterprise identity/email systems; integration depth varies by deployment and licensing.
- Microsoft 365 (common enterprise source of custodians/data)
- Identity providers (SSO patterns; specifics vary)
- eDiscovery workflows within the same ecosystem (where licensed)
- APIs / connectors: Not publicly stated
- Reporting exports (common in legal ops): Varies / N/A
Support & Community
Generally positioned for professional/legal ops teams with structured onboarding and support. Community strength varies by customer segment. Specific tiers: Varies / Not publicly stated.
#2 — Microsoft Purview eDiscovery (Premium)
Short description (2–3 lines): Legal hold capabilities embedded in Microsoft’s compliance and eDiscovery stack, designed for organizations standardized on Microsoft 365. Suitable for legal + IT teams managing holds across Exchange, SharePoint, OneDrive, and Teams.
Key Features
- Legal holds and preservation within Microsoft 365 workloads
- Custodian and non-custodial data source management (model varies by configuration)
- Case-based workflow with auditing and role separation
- Search, review preparation, and export capabilities (eDiscovery suite dependent)
- Integration with Microsoft Purview compliance features (policy alignment)
- Permissions and access control aligned to Microsoft 365 administration
- Reporting and activity logs within the compliance ecosystem
Pros
- Strong native alignment for organizations already deep in Microsoft 365
- Centralized governance: identity, permissions, and compliance tooling in one place
- Reduces third-party complexity for core M365 preservation needs
Cons
- Best results require Microsoft 365 governance maturity and careful role design
- Coverage outside Microsoft ecosystems may require additional tooling
- Licensing and feature packaging can be complex
Platforms / Deployment
- Web
- Cloud
Security & Compliance
- SSO/SAML: Via Microsoft Entra ID
- MFA: Supported via Entra ID policies
- Encryption: Varies / N/A (Microsoft 365 service controls)
- Audit logs: Yes (via Microsoft compliance/audit capabilities)
- RBAC: Yes (role-based permissions in compliance/admin tooling)
- SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR / HIPAA: Varies / N/A (depends on Microsoft 365 compliance commitments; not tool-specific here)
Integrations & Ecosystem
Strongest within the Microsoft ecosystem; extensibility often comes via broader Microsoft security/compliance tooling and administrative interfaces.
- Exchange Online, SharePoint, OneDrive, Teams
- Microsoft Entra ID (identity, access, groups)
- Microsoft Purview compliance features (policies, audit)
- APIs / automation: Varies / N/A (depends on tenant tooling and licensing)
- Third-party connectors: Varies / N/A
Support & Community
Large admin community and extensive documentation across Microsoft 365. Support depends on Microsoft support plan and partner involvement. Specifics: Varies / Not publicly stated.
#3 — Google Vault
Short description (2–3 lines): A governance and eDiscovery tool for Google Workspace that supports retention and legal holds across Gmail, Drive, and other Workspace services (depending on edition). Best for organizations standardized on Google Workspace.
Key Features
- Legal holds tied to users and organizational units (model varies)
- Search and export for supported Google Workspace data
- Retention rules aligned to governance needs
- Audit and investigation workflows appropriate for Workspace admins
- Matter-based organization for searches and exports
- Role-based access patterns via Google Admin controls
- Reporting and logs (scope depends on Workspace edition)
Pros
- Straightforward for Google-centric environments with centralized admin
- Helps reduce reliance on third-party tools for core Workspace preservation
- Works well when paired with strong Workspace governance practices
Cons
- Limited coverage for non-Google SaaS and endpoints without additional tools
- Advanced legal hold workflows (notice management, escalations) may require complementary solutions
- Capabilities vary by Google Workspace edition
Platforms / Deployment
- Web
- Cloud
Security & Compliance
- SSO/SAML: Via Google Workspace identity and SSO options (tenant-controlled)
- MFA: Supported via Google account security policies
- Encryption: Varies / N/A (Google Workspace controls)
- Audit logs: Varies / N/A (depends on edition and admin configuration)
- RBAC: Yes (admin roles)
- SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR / HIPAA: Varies / N/A (depends on Google Workspace compliance commitments; not tool-specific here)
Integrations & Ecosystem
Most valuable inside the Google Workspace ecosystem; exports and downstream review integrations depend on legal processes and tooling.
- Gmail and Google Drive (primary)
- Google Admin console and identity management
- Downstream review platforms via exports (varies by workflow)
- APIs: Not publicly stated (Vault-specific)
- SIEM/logging tools: Varies / N/A (admin log export patterns)
Support & Community
Strong general Workspace admin documentation and community. Direct support depends on Workspace plan and support tier. Details: Varies / Not publicly stated.
#4 — Exterro Legal Hold (including Zapproved Legal Hold capabilities)
Short description (2–3 lines): Legal hold and eDiscovery-focused workflows aimed at making holds operationally repeatable—especially for legal ops teams handling frequent matters. Often positioned for defensible automation and reporting across the hold lifecycle.
Key Features
- End-to-end legal hold workflow: issue, track, remind, escalate, release
- Custodian management with bulk actions and organizational grouping
- Notice templates, acknowledgements, and defensibility reporting
- Audit trails and dashboards for compliance visibility
- Workflow automation to reduce manual follow-ups
- Integration patterns for collection and eDiscovery handoff (platform-dependent)
- Matter-centric collaboration between legal and IT stakeholders
Pros
- Designed specifically around legal hold operations and defensibility
- Good fit for repeatable processes and consistent reporting
- Often aligns well with legal ops KPIs (cycle time, compliance rate)
Cons
- Some integrations and advanced workflows may require professional services
- Best fit for teams with a steady volume of matters (overkill for occasional holds)
- Platform breadth can increase admin complexity
Platforms / Deployment
- Web
- Cloud / Varies / N/A
Security & Compliance
- SSO/SAML: Not publicly stated
- MFA: Not publicly stated
- Encryption: Not publicly stated
- Audit logs: Yes (core to workflow/auditability)
- RBAC: Not publicly stated
- SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR / HIPAA: Not publicly stated
Integrations & Ecosystem
Typically integrated into legal and IT ecosystems to streamline hold-to-collection and reduce data source gaps.
- Microsoft 365 and Google Workspace (common sources; connector specifics vary)
- Collaboration tools (Teams/Slack patterns; varies)
- Identity providers (SSO patterns; varies)
- eDiscovery and review workflows (platform-dependent)
- APIs / webhooks: Not publicly stated
Support & Community
Generally sold with onboarding and customer success support. Documentation quality and community visibility: Varies / Not publicly stated.
#5 — OpenText Legal Hold
Short description (2–3 lines): Enterprise-oriented legal hold capabilities within OpenText’s information management ecosystem. Often considered by organizations already using OpenText for content, archiving, or eDiscovery-related workflows.
Key Features
- Legal hold workflow management for matters and custodians
- Notice issuance, acknowledgements, reminders, and tracking
- Policy and governance alignment with enterprise information management
- Reporting for defensibility and operational oversight
- Integration options with archiving/content repositories (ecosystem-dependent)
- Role-based workflow control suitable for large organizations
- Documentation of release and lifecycle actions
Pros
- Strong fit for enterprises standardized on OpenText platforms
- Suitable for complex information governance environments
- Works well when content lives across managed repositories/archives
Cons
- Can be complex to deploy and configure in heterogeneous environments
- Best outcomes often require ecosystem alignment and admin expertise
- May be heavier than needed for smaller legal teams
Platforms / Deployment
- Web
- Cloud / Self-hosted / Hybrid (varies by OpenText product packaging)
Security & Compliance
- SSO/SAML: Not publicly stated
- MFA: Not publicly stated
- Encryption: Not publicly stated
- Audit logs: Not publicly stated
- RBAC: Not publicly stated
- SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR / HIPAA: Not publicly stated
Integrations & Ecosystem
Most effective when paired with OpenText’s broader content and information management stack; integration approach varies by deployment.
- OpenText content repositories and archives (where applicable)
- Microsoft 365 (common enterprise requirement; details vary)
- Enterprise identity systems (SSO patterns; varies)
- eDiscovery/review workflows (ecosystem-dependent)
- APIs/connectors: Not publicly stated
Support & Community
Enterprise support model with professional services options common. Community details and support tiers: Varies / Not publicly stated.
#6 — Everlaw (Legal Holds within the Everlaw platform)
Short description (2–3 lines): A cloud-native eDiscovery platform that includes legal hold workflows to connect preservation with downstream review and case collaboration. Often used by legal teams seeking a unified, modern interface.
Key Features
- Legal hold issuance and tracking within an eDiscovery-centric platform
- Matter management aligned to review and investigation workflows
- Reporting to monitor hold status and custodian responsiveness
- Collaboration features that support legal teams and outside counsel workflows
- Audit trail and defensibility artifacts (platform-dependent)
- Streamlined handoff from hold to review processes (where configured)
- Workflow organization to reduce duplicated matter setup
Pros
- Unified workflow can reduce friction between hold and eDiscovery phases
- Cloud-first UX often appeals to teams modernizing legacy tooling
- Strong fit for legal teams that want fewer systems per matter
Cons
- If you only need “hold notices,” a full platform may be more than necessary
- Integrations outside core connectors may require planning and services
- Some organizations prefer separation of hold vs review tooling
Platforms / Deployment
- Web
- Cloud
Security & Compliance
- SSO/SAML: Not publicly stated
- MFA: Not publicly stated
- Encryption: Not publicly stated
- Audit logs: Not publicly stated
- RBAC: Not publicly stated
- SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR / HIPAA: Not publicly stated
Integrations & Ecosystem
Typically supports common enterprise data sources and legal workflows; specifics depend on licensing and connector availability.
- Microsoft 365 (common)
- Cloud storage repositories (varies)
- Review/export workflows for productions (platform-centric)
- APIs: Not publicly stated
- Identity providers: Not publicly stated
Support & Community
Generally positioned with guided onboarding and customer success. Documentation and community visibility: Varies / Not publicly stated.
#7 — Logikcull (Legal Hold capabilities within its eDiscovery workflow)
Short description (2–3 lines): An eDiscovery-focused platform often used for faster, simpler workflows; legal hold features are typically part of a broader matter workflow. Common in teams prioritizing speed and usability.
Key Features
- Matter-centric organization for legal workflows
- Legal hold notices and tracking (scope depends on packaging)
- Collection and processing workflows that can follow preservation
- Audit trail and reporting aligned to eDiscovery readiness
- Permissions to separate roles across legal and IT stakeholders
- Standardized templates for repeatable holds and communications
- Export/production workflows for downstream legal needs
Pros
- Often easier to adopt than heavy enterprise stacks
- Works well for teams seeking a streamlined “do it in one place” approach
- Good fit for legal teams that value speed and operational clarity
Cons
- Very large enterprises may outgrow configuration or governance preferences
- Non-standard integrations may require workarounds
- Best value depends on how much of the broader platform you use
Platforms / Deployment
- Web
- Cloud
Security & Compliance
- SSO/SAML: Not publicly stated
- MFA: Not publicly stated
- Encryption: Not publicly stated
- Audit logs: Not publicly stated
- RBAC: Not publicly stated
- SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR / HIPAA: Not publicly stated
Integrations & Ecosystem
Commonly used with standard legal data sources and downstream legal workflows; integration specifics vary.
- Microsoft 365 and common email/file sources (varies)
- Cloud storage sources (varies)
- Legal review/production workflows (platform-centric)
- APIs/webhooks: Not publicly stated
- Identity providers: Not publicly stated
Support & Community
Typically includes product-led onboarding and support resources. Support tiers and community depth: Varies / Not publicly stated.
#8 — Nuix Discover (Legal Hold within an investigation/eDiscovery suite)
Short description (2–3 lines): Investigation and eDiscovery software that can include legal hold and preservation-adjacent workflows as part of a broader suite. Often used by organizations with complex data and investigation requirements.
Key Features
- Matter and workflow management aligned to investigations
- Legal hold functions as part of a broader discovery lifecycle (scope varies)
- Support for handling large, complex datasets (platform-dependent)
- Reporting and auditability for defensible processes
- Workflow controls for multi-team collaboration (legal, compliance, IT)
- Downstream processing/review alignment (suite-dependent)
- Scalable administration patterns for larger deployments
Pros
- Strong fit for complex investigations and large-scale discovery operations
- Better alignment when you need hold + broader investigation tooling
- Often supports sophisticated workflows for legal/compliance teams
Cons
- Can be complex to implement and operate
- May be overkill if legal hold is the only requirement
- Integration scope depends on modules and deployment model
Platforms / Deployment
- Web / Windows (varies by product components)
- Cloud / Self-hosted / Hybrid (varies)
Security & Compliance
- SSO/SAML: Not publicly stated
- MFA: Not publicly stated
- Encryption: Not publicly stated
- Audit logs: Not publicly stated
- RBAC: Not publicly stated
- SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR / HIPAA: Not publicly stated
Integrations & Ecosystem
Often used in mature eDiscovery environments where connectors, exports, and workflow handoffs matter.
- Enterprise data sources (email, files, archives; varies)
- Review and production workflows (suite-dependent)
- Identity systems (varies)
- APIs/connectors: Not publicly stated
- Partner ecosystems: Varies / N/A
Support & Community
Typically enterprise support with implementation assistance available. Community and documentation: Varies / Not publicly stated.
#9 — Veritas eDiscovery Platform (and related Veritas information governance tooling)
Short description (2–3 lines): Enterprise eDiscovery and information governance tooling that can support legal hold and preservation workflows, often used in environments with significant legacy infrastructure and archiving needs.
Key Features
- Legal hold and preservation management aligned to governance
- Support for archiving-centric environments (where deployed)
- Policy-driven approaches for retention and defensible preservation
- Auditing and reporting for compliance and legal readiness
- Enterprise administration for large data volumes and user bases
- Integration patterns with archives and repositories (deployment-dependent)
- Workflow alignment for collection/export to legal processes
Pros
- Strong fit for enterprises with established archiving and governance programs
- Useful when on-prem or hybrid realities remain significant
- Designed for scale and operational control
Cons
- Modern SaaS-only organizations may find it heavier than needed
- Implementation and upgrades can require specialized expertise
- User experience may feel more IT-centric than legal-centric
Platforms / Deployment
- Web / Windows (varies)
- Self-hosted / Hybrid (varies)
Security & Compliance
- SSO/SAML: Not publicly stated
- MFA: Not publicly stated
- Encryption: Not publicly stated
- Audit logs: Not publicly stated
- RBAC: Not publicly stated
- SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR / HIPAA: Not publicly stated
Integrations & Ecosystem
Integration value often comes from connections to archives, file systems, and enterprise messaging environments.
- Enterprise archives and storage systems (varies)
- Microsoft ecosystem components (varies)
- Identity and directory services (varies)
- Export workflows to review tools (varies)
- APIs/connectors: Not publicly stated
Support & Community
Typically enterprise support with professional services. Documentation and community: Varies / Not publicly stated.
#10 — Proofpoint Archive (with legal hold capabilities)
Short description (2–3 lines): An enterprise archiving solution where legal hold is part of preserving and producing communications data. Best for organizations that prioritize email/comms archiving and need legal hold tied closely to that archive.
Key Features
- Legal hold applied to archived content (scope depends on configuration)
- Retention and governance controls aligned to compliance archiving
- Search and export workflows for legal/compliance requests
- Administrative controls designed for regulated industries
- Reporting and auditability for archive access and actions
- Policy-based management to reduce manual handling
- Support for large-scale message volumes (archive-centric)
Pros
- Strong fit when your primary preservation need is communications archiving
- Centralizes governance and legal access patterns around the archive
- Useful in regulated environments with established archive programs
Cons
- If your key evidence lives in collaboration apps and SaaS tools, you may need additional coverage
- Legal hold workflow features may be less “legal ops” oriented than dedicated hold tools
- Integration depth depends on your broader information governance architecture
Platforms / Deployment
- Web
- Cloud / Varies / N/A
Security & Compliance
- SSO/SAML: Not publicly stated
- MFA: Not publicly stated
- Encryption: Not publicly stated
- Audit logs: Not publicly stated
- RBAC: Not publicly stated
- SOC 2 / ISO 27001 / GDPR / HIPAA: Not publicly stated
Integrations & Ecosystem
Most valuable when integrated into an email/comms stack and compliance operations; connectors vary by deployment and licensing.
- Email systems and journaling/ingestion (varies)
- Identity providers (varies)
- SIEM/logging exports (varies)
- eDiscovery/review exports (varies)
- APIs: Not publicly stated
Support & Community
Enterprise support model; onboarding often involves IT/security stakeholders. Support tiers: Varies / Not publicly stated.
Comparison Table (Top 10)
| Tool Name | Best For | Platform(s) Supported | Deployment (Cloud/Self-hosted/Hybrid) | Standout Feature | Public Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relativity Legal Hold | Orgs already aligned to Relativity eDiscovery workflows | Web | Cloud / Varies | Defensible hold workflows within a broader eDiscovery ecosystem | N/A |
| Microsoft Purview eDiscovery (Premium) | Microsoft 365–centric legal hold and preservation | Web | Cloud | Native holds across core Microsoft 365 workloads | N/A |
| Google Vault | Google Workspace–centric retention and legal holds | Web | Cloud | Built-in holds and search/export for Workspace data | N/A |
| Exterro Legal Hold | Legal ops teams needing repeatable, automated hold operations | Web | Cloud / Varies | Hold automation + operational reporting | N/A |
| OpenText Legal Hold | Enterprises using OpenText information management tooling | Web | Cloud / Self-hosted / Hybrid | Enterprise alignment with content/archiving ecosystems | N/A |
| Everlaw | Teams wanting legal hold tightly connected to cloud eDiscovery | Web | Cloud | Unified matter workflow from hold into review | N/A |
| Logikcull | Teams prioritizing faster adoption and simpler workflows | Web | Cloud | Streamlined, matter-centric legal workflows | N/A |
| Nuix Discover | Complex investigations and large-scale discovery programs | Web / Windows (varies) | Cloud / Self-hosted / Hybrid | Handles complex discovery operations with suite-based workflows | N/A |
| Veritas eDiscovery Platform | Hybrid/on-prem governance and archiving-heavy environments | Web / Windows (varies) | Self-hosted / Hybrid | Strong fit for legacy + enterprise governance patterns | N/A |
| Proofpoint Archive | Communications archiving with hold needs tied to the archive | Web | Cloud / Varies | Archive-centric preservation and export workflows | N/A |
Evaluation & Scoring of Legal Hold Software
Weights:
- Core features – 25%
- Ease of use – 15%
- Integrations & ecosystem – 15%
- Security & compliance – 10%
- Performance & reliability – 10%
- Support & community – 10%
- Price / value – 15%
| Tool Name | Core (25%) | Ease (15%) | Integrations (15%) | Security (10%) | Performance (10%) | Support (10%) | Value (15%) | Weighted Total (0–10) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Relativity Legal Hold | 8.5 | 6.5 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 7.5 | 6.5 | 7.52 |
| Microsoft Purview eDiscovery (Premium) | 8.0 | 6.5 | 8.5 | 8.0 | 8.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.55 |
| Google Vault | 6.5 | 7.5 | 6.5 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 8.0 | 7.15 |
| Exterro Legal Hold | 8.5 | 7.0 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 7.5 | 7.5 | 6.5 | 7.55 |
| OpenText Legal Hold | 7.5 | 5.5 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 6.78 |
| Everlaw | 7.5 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 6.5 | 7.18 |
| Logikcull | 7.0 | 8.0 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.0 | 7.05 |
| Nuix Discover | 8.0 | 5.5 | 7.5 | 6.5 | 8.0 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 6.98 |
| Veritas eDiscovery Platform | 7.5 | 5.0 | 7.0 | 6.5 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 6.0 | 6.65 |
| Proofpoint Archive | 6.5 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 6.5 | 7.5 | 7.0 | 6.5 | 6.65 |
How to interpret these scores:
- Scores are comparative (not absolute truth) and reflect typical fit across common requirements.
- A lower “Ease” score can be acceptable if you need enterprise controls and have admin capacity.
- “Integrations” matters most when your data is spread across many systems beyond email/files.
- “Value” depends heavily on licensing structure, existing contracts, and how much of the platform you actually use.
Which Legal Hold Software Tool Is Right for You?
Solo / Freelancer
Most solo practitioners don’t need dedicated legal hold software unless they manage holds for multiple clients with formal defensibility needs. Consider:
- Using the client’s platform (often Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace) for preservation controls.
- If you need a tool, prioritize simplicity, templated notices, and exports over enterprise complexity.
SMB
SMBs often face a few matters per year but still need defensibility.
- If you run on Microsoft 365, start by evaluating Microsoft Purview eDiscovery for preservation coverage.
- If you run on Google Workspace, start with Google Vault for core holds and exports.
- If you need stronger notice workflows (acknowledgements, escalations, dashboards), look at legal-ops-focused tools like Exterro’s legal hold offerings.
Mid-Market
Mid-market teams commonly hit the “spreadsheet breaks” moment: too many custodians, too many reminders, too many sources.
- Choose a tool with repeatable workflows and strong reporting (who acknowledged, who didn’t, escalation outcomes).
- If your matters flow directly into review, consider platforms that unify hold-to-review (e.g., Everlaw or a Relativity-aligned approach).
Enterprise
Enterprises need scale, governance, defensibility, and integration breadth.
- If standardized on Microsoft, Purview eDiscovery can reduce stack sprawl for M365 data, but validate coverage for chat/collaboration and non-Microsoft sources.
- If your enterprise already uses a mature eDiscovery platform, prioritizing Relativity Legal Hold (or an ecosystem-aligned tool) can reduce handoff friction.
- If you have deep archiving and hybrid needs, enterprise governance stacks (e.g., OpenText, Veritas, Proofpoint Archive) can fit—especially when legal hold is tied to archive-based preservation.
Budget vs Premium
- Budget-leaning: Start with what you already license (Microsoft 365 / Google Workspace). You may meet baseline preservation needs quickly.
- Premium: Pay for legal-ops automation when you need defensible metrics, fewer manual steps, and consistent processes across many matters.
Feature Depth vs Ease of Use
- If your legal team runs the process day-to-day, ease of use reduces risk of missteps.
- If IT/security owns preservation, feature depth and governance controls may matter more—even if the UI is heavier.
Integrations & Scalability
Choose based on where evidence actually lives:
- Mostly email/files in a single suite: native tools may be enough.
- Many SaaS apps + endpoints: prioritize tools with a clear connector strategy and documented handoffs to collection/review.
Security & Compliance Needs
- For regulated industries, require RBAC, audit logs, SSO, and well-defined admin roles.
- Don’t assume: ask vendors to confirm data residency, encryption model, logging retention, and access controls in writing.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is a “legal hold” in simple terms?
A legal hold is a formal process to preserve potentially relevant information when litigation or an investigation is reasonably anticipated. It prevents deletion or alteration and documents what you did and when.
Do I need legal hold software if I already have retention policies?
Retention policies help govern lifecycle, but legal holds are event-driven and require targeted preservation and defensible tracking. Many organizations use both: retention for baseline governance, holds for exceptions.
How do legal hold notices work?
A system typically sends notices to custodians, records delivery, collects acknowledgements, and issues reminders. Good tools also support escalations and provide audit-ready reports.
What’s the difference between legal hold and eDiscovery?
Legal hold is about preservation and process tracking. eDiscovery includes the broader lifecycle: identification, collection, processing, review, and production. Some platforms combine both; others specialize.
How long does implementation usually take?
Varies widely based on integrations, identity setup, and governance maturity. A suite-native approach (Microsoft/Google) can be quicker, while multi-source enterprise deployments can take longer.
What are common mistakes teams make with legal holds?
Common issues include: missing custodians, over-preserving too broadly, weak tracking of acknowledgements, inconsistent release processes, and poor documentation of changes to scope over time.
Can legal hold software preserve Teams/Slack messages?
Some tools preserve collaboration data via native suite capabilities or connectors, but coverage depends on your environment and licensing. Validate exactly which message types and artifacts are preserved (edits, deletions, attachments, reactions).
How should we evaluate security for legal hold tools?
At minimum, require RBAC, audit logs, encryption, and SSO/MFA alignment. Also evaluate admin separation of duties, data residency needs, and how exports/productions are secured.
Can we switch legal hold tools later?
Yes, but plan for migration of matter metadata, audit history, and defensibility records. Some teams keep historical holds in the old system and only run new matters in the new tool to reduce risk.
What pricing models are typical?
Common models include per-custodian, per-matter, per-data-volume, or bundled licensing within a broader platform (e.g., Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace editions). Pricing is often Varies / N/A publicly.
What are alternatives to dedicated legal hold software?
Alternatives include native suite governance (Microsoft/Google), archiving platforms with hold features, or well-controlled manual processes. The trade-off is usually less automation and higher risk as volume grows.
Conclusion
Legal hold software is fundamentally about defensibility: preserving relevant information, proving you notified the right people, tracking compliance, and producing reliable reports when scrutiny arrives. In 2026+, the challenge is less about “sending an email notice” and more about preserving across fragmented cloud collaboration data while keeping processes auditable and privacy-aware.
The best tool depends on your environment:
- If you’re all-in on Microsoft 365 or Google Workspace, suite-native options may cover a large portion of needs.
- If you manage frequent matters and need operational rigor, legal-ops-focused platforms can reduce manual work and improve reporting.
- If you’re enterprise/hybrid with archiving and governance complexity, ecosystem-aligned solutions may be the most practical.
Next step: shortlist 2–3 tools, run a pilot with a real (or realistic) matter, and validate integrations, reporting, and security controls before standardizing.