Zapproved

Name: Zapproved
Brand: Zapproved
Rating: 4.4 (63 reviews)

Take Control of Ediscovery

Est 2008|Valuation $237.5M|Raised $20M|10 Ref Customers

LinkedIn 6K|Web traffic 3K|FTEs 74|HQ Portland, Oregon, US

MarketseDiscovery Platforms Legal Hold Management

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

- Zapproved vs Everlaw: Everlaw provides clearer public materials on pricing philosophy and emphasizes an integrated cloud-native eDiscovery approach. Zapproved presents packaged bundles but does not publish list prices; procurement friction may be lower with vendors that publish clearer pricing indications. - Zapproved vs Relativity Legal Hold: Relativity Legal Hold is part of a broader RelativityOne platform. Organizations already invested in Relativity may prefer the native integration. Zapproved may be selected by in-house teams seeking a hold-first rollout with an emphasis on workflow simplicity. - Zapproved vs OpenText Axcelerate: OpenText is often chosen by large enterprises that require standardized, scalable eDiscovery with vendor-managed services. Zapproved is more explicitly positioned toward in-house legal hold, preservation, collection, and review workflows.

Adoption/market signals

The vendor has stated a customer-count figure consistent with a mid-sized customer base and has made market-positioning claims in marketing materials; independent validation of market share claims was not located in the sources reviewed.

	Zapproved (ZDiscovery)	Everlaw	Relativity Legal Hold
Starting Price	Not published (annual subscription bundles)	Vendor provides pricing materials; dollar rates not shown on public page for all deployment options	Not published; typically requires contact for pricing
Best For	In-house teams prioritizing legal hold workflow, preservation/collection, and auditability	Teams seeking cloud-native eDiscovery with an emphasis on broad feature set and transparent pricing philosophy	Organizations standardized on the Relativity ecosystem needing integrated legal hold functionality
Key Strength	Legal-hold specialization, preservation/collection modules, and vendor-stated support responsiveness	Broad platform features, cloud-native design, and public-facing pricing philosophy for some offerings	Mature eDiscovery ecosystem, extensive admin tooling, and broad partner network
Key Weakness	Public pricing transparency is limited; smaller public community footprint; potential post-acquisition integration risks	Costs can scale with hosted data/usage; may exceed needs for hold-only scenarios	Potential administrative complexity and typical enterprise-oriented footprint

01Competitive Landscape

Narrative analysis

Zapproved vs Everlaw: Everlaw provides clearer public materials on pricing philosophy and emphasizes an integrated cloud-native eDiscovery approach. Zapproved presents packaged bundles but does not publish list prices; procurement friction may be lower with vendors that publish clearer pricing indications.
Zapproved vs Relativity Legal Hold: Relativity Legal Hold is part of a broader RelativityOne platform. Organizations already invested in Relativity may prefer the native integration. Zapproved may be selected by in-house teams seeking a hold-first rollout with an emphasis on workflow simplicity.
Zapproved vs OpenText Axcelerate: OpenText is often chosen by large enterprises that require standardized, scalable eDiscovery with vendor-managed services. Zapproved is more explicitly positioned toward in-house legal hold, preservation, collection, and review workflows.

Adoption/market signals

The vendor has stated a customer-count figure consistent with a mid-sized customer base and has made market-positioning claims in marketing materials; independent validation of market share claims was not located in the sources reviewed.

	Zapproved (ZDiscovery)	Everlaw	Relativity Legal Hold
Starting Price	Not published (annual subscription bundles)	Vendor provides pricing materials; dollar rates not shown on public page for all deployment options	Not published; typically requires contact for pricing
Best For	In-house teams prioritizing legal hold workflow, preservation/collection, and auditability	Teams seeking cloud-native eDiscovery with an emphasis on broad feature set and transparent pricing philosophy	Organizations standardized on the Relativity ecosystem needing integrated legal hold functionality
Key Strength	Legal-hold specialization, preservation/collection modules, and vendor-stated support responsiveness	Broad platform features, cloud-native design, and public-facing pricing philosophy for some offerings	Mature eDiscovery ecosystem, extensive admin tooling, and broad partner network
Key Weakness	Public pricing transparency is limited; smaller public community footprint; potential post-acquisition integration risks	Costs can scale with hosted data/usage; may exceed needs for hold-only scenarios	Potential administrative complexity and typical enterprise-oriented footprint