InQuery vs EvenUp
InQuery vs EvenUp for Personal Injury Firms: Chronologies, Demand Letters, and When to Choose Which
Both use AI plus human review. The difference is which document you actually need — and who you're producing it for.
Last updated
Most personal injury firms shortlisting AI tools end up looking at both InQuery and EvenUp, but the two products solve different problems. EvenUp is built end-to-end around the demand letter: records go in, a finished demand package comes out. InQuery is built end-to-end around the medical chronology: records go in, a source-linked, attorney-ready chronology comes out — which can then feed any demand drafting tool, including EvenUp.
The right choice depends less on which platform is “better” and more on which bottleneck in your case lifecycle you’re trying to remove first.
What each platform actually does
EvenUp generates AI demand letters trained on a database of 250,000+ verdicts and settlements, with ICD-coded injury data. The platform processes medical records, builds a chronology view inside the demand package, calculates medical specials, and outputs a demand letter in your firm’s tone and template. Two tiers exist: Express Demands (instant, AI-only) and Expert-Reviewed Demands (in-house legal team reviews before delivery). EvenUp is marketed and built exclusively for plaintiff PI firms.
InQuery processes medical records into source-linked chronologies and summaries with a built-in human QA layer. Every entry in a chronology links to a specific page and Bates number in the source records, which is the floor for litigation-grade work. InQuery serves both plaintiff and defense firms, plus insurance carriers, IROs, MSP consultants, and independent adjusters — anyone who needs a clean, defensible read of a medical file. Chronologies export into EvenUp, Supio, Filevine, Casemark, or any custom demand template.
When to choose InQuery
Pick InQuery first if any of these describe your situation:
- You need source-linked chronologies that hold up at deposition or trial. Page-level citations on every entry matter when opposing counsel asks you to produce the underlying record for a specific fact.
- You handle both plaintiff and defense work, or your team includes IRO reviewers, MSP consultants, or carrier-side adjusters. EvenUp doesn’t fit those workflows.
- You already have a demand letter system you like (a template, a paralegal-driven workflow, or another tool) and what you need is cleaner upstream data.
- You handle high-stakes litigation — catastrophic injury, medical malpractice, wrongful death, large-dollar nursing-home cases — where a misattributed surgery or missed pre-existing condition can blow up a case at trial. Our medical record summary mistakes guide walks through how those errors typically surface.
- You need a SOC 2 Type II vendor. EvenUp lists “SOC 2-audited” without specifying type; InQuery has full Type II certification and a BAA available.
For a deeper breakdown of how to evaluate medical summarization platforms, see our platform features evaluation guide.
When to choose EvenUp
Pick EvenUp first if any of these describe your situation:
- Demand letter drafting is your single largest bottleneck. EvenUp’s end-to-end demand workflow removes the most steps in one move.
- You’re a plaintiff PI firm with a high volume of soft-tissue and mid-severity cases where demand-stage settlement is the goal, not trial.
- You want a finished demand package, not a chronology you’ll hand off to a separate drafting step.
- Your case management system is CasePeer or Filevine and you want native integration without an API project.
Firms doing a lot of demand work often use both: InQuery for the upstream chronology, EvenUp for the downstream demand letter. The source-linked chronology carries into the demand package, and EvenUp’s drafting workflow benefits from cleaner inputs. We cover this stack pattern in our demand letter workflow guide.
How pricing compares
Both platforms publish pricing on request only. Based on what firms report in evaluation conversations:
- EvenUp prices per demand letter, typically in the $200–$500 range depending on case complexity and whether you choose Express or Expert-Reviewed.
- InQuery prices per chronology or via a volume subscription. Firms running 20+ chronologies a month usually land on the subscription side; firms doing trial-bound files with deep records often prefer per-case.
The pricing-per-document comparison undersells the real difference: InQuery’s chronology can feed multiple downstream documents (demand letter, mediation brief, deposition outline, expert package). EvenUp’s price is the price of one demand letter. If your case lifecycle produces more than one document from the same record set, that economics shifts.
Our medical summary software costs guide covers the broader cost-modeling math.
On accuracy and human review
Both platforms set the floor for litigation work because both include a human review layer — InQuery’s by default on every chronology, EvenUp’s via the Expert-Reviewed tier. Express Demands (AI-only) keep up on volume but should not be the final word on cases bound for trial. The accuracy ceiling on any AI tool — InQuery, EvenUp, or otherwise — is what a human reviewer catches that the model misses. That’s why both InQuery and EvenUp’s premium tier pair AI extraction with mandatory human QA. The platforms with optional or no human review trade accuracy for cost, and that tradeoff stops being economic on a $500K case.
For more on accuracy tiers across the market, our best medical summary software comparison breaks down which platforms include mandatory QA versus optional review.
Feature comparison
| Feature | InQuery | EvenUp |
|---|---|---|
| Primary output | Source-linked medical chronology, attorney-ready as a standalone deliverable | AI-generated demand letter (Express or Expert-Reviewed) with an embedded chronology view |
| Source-linking depth | Every entry links back to a specific page and Bates number, every time | Partial — high-level references, not every data point traces to a specific page |
| Human QA | Mandatory clinical + QA layer included on every chronology | Optional — Expert-Reviewed tier uses an in-house legal team; Express Demands are AI-only |
| Who it serves | Plaintiff and defense PI firms, insurance carriers, IROs, MSP consultants, and adjusters | Plaintiff PI firms only |
| Security & compliance | SOC 2 Type II certified, HIPAA compliant, BAA available | SOC 2-audited, HIPAA-attested |
| Pricing model | Per-chronology or volume subscription (custom) | Per demand letter, typically $200–$500 per package |
| Turnaround | Hours, scales with file size; rush available | 4–8 hours per case for a full demand package |
| Integrations | API-ready; feeds clean data into EvenUp, Supio, Filevine, Casemark, and custom templates | Native integrations with CasePeer and Filevine |
Frequently asked questions
Are InQuery and EvenUp competitors or complements?
They overlap, but the sweet spots are different. InQuery's primary output is a defensible, source-linked medical chronology you can hand to any drafter, expert, or downstream tool. EvenUp's primary output is a finished demand letter with the chronology wrapped inside. A growing number of plaintiff firms run InQuery upstream of EvenUp — the chronology goes into the demand package, and source-linking is preserved end to end.
Which one is better for plaintiff PI firms?
Depends on where your bottleneck is. If demand letter drafting is the slowest step in your case lifecycle, EvenUp's end-to-end demand workflow removes a lot of friction in one move. If your bottleneck is upstream — record review, missing pages, inconsistent chronologies that don't survive cross-examination — InQuery solves that first, and you keep the demand tool you already use.
Can I use InQuery chronologies inside EvenUp demand letters?
Yes. InQuery's chronologies export in formats most demand letter platforms (including EvenUp) can ingest, and we maintain API connectivity for firms running a multi-vendor stack. The page-level source links carry through, so the demand letter inherits the defensibility of the underlying chronology.
Which has stronger source-linking for litigation work?
InQuery is built around page-level citations. Every entry in the chronology pins to a specific page and Bates number, which matters when opposing counsel challenges a fact during deposition or cross. EvenUp's source-linking is partial — strong enough for negotiation-stage work, but litigation teams often need to verify cited facts independently before they hit the courtroom.
Does EvenUp work for defense firms or insurance carriers?
No. EvenUp's product is built and marketed for plaintiff PI firms. Defense counsel, insurance carriers, IROs, and MSP consultants need a chronology tool that doesn't bake in plaintiff-side framing — that's the use case InQuery is built for, and it's why our customer mix spans both sides of the v.
How do I decide which to evaluate first?
Run one of your own cases through both. The chronology depth, source-linking, and QA differences show up immediately on a real file in a way that no demo can replicate. Most firms can get a working comparison done in a single afternoon. You can start an InQuery trial here: /get-started
See how InQuery handles your records
Run a real file through both. The differences show up in the source-linked chronology, the QA layer, and the security posture.
Start with InQuery