The Pricing Pulse: Document Review Insights from the Winter 2026 eDiscovery Pricing Survey

Editor’s Note: As part of the Winter 2026 eDiscovery Pricing Survey series, conducted by ComplexDiscovery OÜ in partnership with the EDRM (Electronic Discovery Reference Model), this post explores the pricing of document review services — from technology-assisted review and predictive coding to managed review by attorneys, both onsite and remote.

Document review is where the pricing pulse of eDiscovery beats loudest. It is the most labor-intensive and often the most expensive phase of the workflow, the point at which data volumes translate most directly into dollars. How organizations price review — whether by the hour, by the document, or through alternative models — reveals the market’s ongoing negotiation between human judgment and technological efficiency.

Industry Research

The Pricing Pulse: Document Review Insights from the Winter 2026 eDiscovery Pricing Survey

ComplexDiscovery Staff

Survey Background

The Winter 2026 eDiscovery Pricing Survey, a 25‑question instrument covering key stages of the eDiscovery lifecycle, was conducted from late December 2025 through February 21, 2026, and drew responses from 53 participants across the eDiscovery ecosystem. The respondent pool was overwhelmingly U.S.-based, with 92.5% of participants conducting their eDiscovery-related business in the United States. The remaining respondents were distributed across Europe — including the United Kingdom (3.8%) and non-UK Europe (1.9%) — and Asia/Asia Pacific (1.9%).

By segment, law firms accounted for the largest share at 43.4% of respondents, followed by software and/or services providers (24.5%), corporations (15.1%), consultancies (9.4%), and media/research organizations or educational associations (7.5%). From a functional standpoint, the pool was dominated by legal and litigation support professionals at 67.9%, with business and business support functions at 26.4% and IT and product development at 5.7%.

Technology-Assisted Review: Predictive Coding

Predictive Coding Costs (Question 13)

Predictive coding — the use of machine learning to classify and prioritize documents during review — reveals a market in which alternative pricing models have overtaken conventional per-GB structures as the single most common approach. Some 35.8% of respondents reported using alternative pricing models, making this the highest alternative-model rate across all survey questions. Meanwhile, 30.2% reported per-GB costs below $75, and 13.2% fell between $75 and $150 per GB. Just 1.9% reported rates exceeding $150 per GB.

The “do not know” rate was 18.9%, suggesting that predictive coding pricing remains unfamiliar to a meaningful portion of the market — particularly those who may not regularly scope or negotiate technology-assisted review engagements.

The dominance of alternative models is a significant finding. It suggests that per-GB pricing, while still widely used, is increasingly seen as a poor fit for a service whose value lies not in the volume of data processed but in the accuracy and efficiency of the classifications it produces. Flat-fee, subscription, or outcome-based approaches may better align cost with the analytical value predictive coding delivers, and the market appears to be moving in that direction.

Managed Review: Hourly Pricing

Onsite Managed Review — Per Hour (Question 14)

Hourly rates for onsite managed document review by attorneys show a pronounced premium orientation. The largest response category — 45.3% — reported rates exceeding $40 per hour, while 32.1% fell in the $25 to $40 range. Together, 77.4% of respondents placed the onsite review rate at $25 or more per hour. Only 1.9% reported rates below $25, and another 1.9% cited alternative pricing models.

The “do not know” rate was 18.9%, consistent with the pattern seen in predictive coding and likely reflecting respondents who do not regularly engage in or price managed review services.

The premium concentration above $40 per hour reflects the cost of staffing qualified review attorneys for onsite work, where physical presence adds logistical complexity and overhead. Onsite review engagements typically involve dedicated facilities, supervision, and the coordination costs associated with placing attorneys at a client or service provider location.

Remote Managed Review — Per Hour (Question 15)

Remote managed review shows a measurable downward shift. The largest response category was $25 to $40 per hour at 41.5%, compared to 32.1% for onsite. The share exceeding $40 per hour dropped to 35.8%, down from 45.3% onsite. The combined rate of $25 or more remained unchanged at 77.4%, but the distribution shifted toward the lower band.

Below $25, 3.8% of respondents reported lower remote rates — double the 1.9% for onsite, though both figures remain small. Alternative models accounted for 1.9%, and “do not know” was 17.0%.

The onsite-to-remote shift mirrors the pattern observed in forensic collections earlier in this survey series: remote delivery reduces overhead, and competitive pressures push rates downward, but the core pricing band remains broadly consistent. For managed review, the key dynamic is that remote work eliminates facility costs and broadens the pool of available reviewers, introducing price competition without fundamentally altering the hourly billing model.

Managed Review: Per-Document Pricing

Onsite Managed Review — Per Document (Question 16)

Per-document pricing for onsite managed review reveals a market where uncertainty is the dominant feature. The largest single response was “do not know” at 34.0% — the highest uncertainty rate for any question in this section and among the highest in the full survey. Among those who did report pricing, 30.2% fell between $0.50 and $1.00 per document, while 22.6% reported rates exceeding $1.00 per document. Just 3.8% reported rates below $0.50.

Alternative models accounted for 9.4% of responses. Among respondents who provided a specific price, more than half (52.8%) placed onsite per-document review at $0.50 or above, confirming a premium tier consistent with the hourly findings.

The high “do not know” rate is telling. Per-document pricing requires translating attorney time into per-unit costs, which depends on review complexity, document length, and coding requirements — variables that make standardized per-document rates difficult to estimate. Many respondents may simply encounter hourly billing more frequently and lack visibility into how per-document rates are calculated.

Remote Managed Review — Per Document (Question 17)

Remote per-document pricing follows a similar pattern, with “do not know” again leading at 30.2%. Among those who reported rates, 28.3% fell between $0.50 and $1.00 per document, while 18.9% exceeded $1.00 per document. Below $0.50, 13.2% of respondents reported lower rates — a substantially larger share than the 3.8% for onsite, suggesting that remote delivery opens the door to more competitive per-document pricing.

Alternative models accounted for 9.4%, and the combined $0.50-and-above share was 47.2%, compared to 52.8% for onsite — a modest downward shift consistent with the trend in hourly pricing.

The expansion of the sub-$0.50 category from 3.8% (onsite) to 13.2% (remote) is the most notable difference between the two per-document questions. This gap indicates that some providers are leveraging remote delivery to offer significantly lower per-document rates, likely enabled by lower-cost reviewer pools, reduced overhead, and potentially greater use of technology-assisted workflows that increase reviewer throughput.

Aggregate Analysis: What the Document Review Pricing Pulse Reveals

The Winter 2026 document review results highlight a phase of the eDiscovery workflow defined by high costs, persistent uncertainty, and an ongoing tension between established billing models and emerging alternatives.

Predictive coding has crossed a pricing model threshold. At 35.8%, the alternative-model rate for predictive coding is the highest across all survey questions — surpassing even user licensing (34.0%) and completion-stage processing (22.6%). This signals that per-GB pricing is losing ground as the default for technology-assisted review, with the market increasingly favoring models that reflect the service’s analytical rather than volumetric value.

Hourly managed review pricing is consistent but stratified by delivery model. Both onsite and remote reviews show that 77.4% of respondents earn $25 or more per hour, but the distribution within that band shifts meaningfully. Onsite reviews concentrate above $40 (45.3%), while remote reviews center on the $25 to $40 range (41.5%). This pattern — a shared floor with divergent ceilings — reflects the cost differential of physical versus remote delivery without disrupting the fundamental hourly billing structure.

Per-document pricing carries the highest uncertainty in this section. “Do not know” rates reached 34.0% for onsite and 30.2% for remote per-document pricing — far exceeding the 18.9% and 17.0% rates for their hourly counterparts. This suggests that, while per-document models are used, they are less widely understood or encountered than hourly billing, and that the translation from attorney time to per-unit cost remains opaque to many market participants.

Remote delivery introduces downward pressure across all models. Whether measured hourly or per document, remote managed review consistently produces lower pricing distributions than onsite equivalents. The effect is most pronounced in per-document pricing, where the sub-$0.50 share expands from 3.8% (onsite) to 13.2% (remote) — a more than threefold increase that highlights the cost advantages remote delivery can provide.

Demographics contextualize the uncertainty. Given that law firms (43.4%) are the largest respondent segment, the high “do not know” rates may reflect the reality that many law firm professionals negotiate review costs through bundled vendor proposals rather than itemized per-document rates. Service providers (24.5%) who set these rates may offer greater granularity—but the combined perspective reveals a market where pricing transparency for per-document review remains limited.

Signals Shaping the Next Wave of Review Costs

The pricing pulse for document review in Winter 2026 reveals a market that is both mature and in motion. Hourly billing for managed review remains the dominant and best-understood model, with stable pricing bands that differentiate onsite from remote delivery. Per-document pricing, by contrast, carries substantial uncertainty, suggesting that this model has not yet achieved the transparency or standardization needed for broad market confidence.

Predictive coding stands out as the most forward-looking indicator. Its record-high adoption of alternative pricing models suggests that the market is actively redefining how technology-assisted review should be valued — a shift that may increasingly influence how all review services are priced as AI-driven tools become more integrated into the workflow.

In the final installment of this series, we follow the pricing pulse into generative AI-assisted review — the newest and most rapidly evolving segment of the eDiscovery pricing landscape.

News Source

• Rob Robinson and Holley Robinson, ComplexDiscovery OÜ, “Winter 2026 eDiscovery Pricing Survey,” February 2026.

Assisted by GAI and LLM Technologies

Additional Reading

• The Pricing Pulse: Data Processing, Hosting, and Project Management Insights from the Winter 2026 eDiscovery Pricing Survey
• The Pricing Pulse: Forensic Collection, Examination, and Testimony Insights from the Winter 2026 eDiscovery Pricing Survey
• ComplexDiscovery OÜ Launches Winter 2026 eDiscovery Pricing Survey, Seeking Clarity in a Maturing GenAI Market
• Industry Benchmarks in an Era of Transformation: The Complete Summer 2025 eDiscovery Pricing Survey
• The Front Door of eDiscovery: Forensic Pricing Insights from the Summer 2025 eDiscovery Survey
• Processing, Hosting, and Project Management Pricing: The Engine Room of eDiscovery in the Summer 2025 Survey
• The Human Core of eDiscovery: Review Services in the Summer 2025 Pricing Survey
• Generative AI at the Frontier of eDiscovery: Pricing Insights from the Summer 2025 Survey
• eDiscovery Surveys Archives – ComplexDiscovery

Source: ComplexDiscovery OÜ

ComplexDiscovery’s mission is to enable clarity for complex decisions by providing independent, data‑driven reporting, research, and commentary that make digital risk, legal technology, and regulatory change more legible for practitioners, policymakers, and business leaders.