InQuery vs Supio: Source-Linked Chronologies vs a Plaintiff AI Platform

Plaintiff firms evaluating AI often shortlist InQuery and Supio together, but they are solving different-sized problems. Supio is a broad plaintiff-side platform — it aims to sit across intake, case analysis, and drafting. InQuery is a focused engine for the medical chronology and record-review layer: records go in, a source-linked, human-reviewed chronology comes out, and it feeds whatever you use downstream.

The choice is less “which is better” and more “how much of your workflow are you trying to move.”

What each platform actually does

Supio positions itself as a case-intelligence platform for plaintiff PI firms, applying AI across the case lifecycle — organizing records, surfacing case insights, and supporting drafting — with integrations into the major case-management systems (CasePeer, SmartAdvocate, MyCase, Litify, Filevine). It is built for firms that want AI woven through the whole plaintiff workflow.

InQuery processes medical records into source-linked chronologies and summaries with a built-in human QA layer. Every entry links to a specific page and Bates number in the source records — the floor for litigation-grade work. InQuery serves plaintiff and defense firms plus insurance carriers, IROs, MSP consultants, and adjusters, and its chronologies export into Supio, Filevine, Casemark, EvenUp, or any custom template.

When to choose InQuery

You want the most defensible chronology layer without changing your case workflow. InQuery drops into whatever platform or template you already run.
You need page-level source-linking that holds up at deposition or trial. Every entry pins to a specific page and Bates number.
You handle both plaintiff and defense work, or your team includes IRO reviewers, MSP consultants, or carrier-side adjusters — segments a plaintiff-only platform doesn’t serve.
You want mandatory human QA on every file, not an AI-only pass you have to re-check. Our medical record summary mistakes guide shows how record-review errors surface in litigation.

When to choose Supio

You want to consolidate onto one plaintiff platform across intake, analysis, and drafting, and are ready to adopt a full workflow tool.
You’re a plaintiff PI firm looking for AI woven through the entire case, not just the record-review step.
Firm-wide platform adoption is the goal, and your case-management system is one Supio integrates with natively.

A common pattern: run InQuery upstream for the source-linked chronology, then work the case inside your platform of choice — the citations carry through. For how the chronology feeds downstream drafting, see our demand letter workflow guide, and for choosing a record-review vendor, the platform features evaluation guide.

Feature comparison

Feature	InQuery	Supio
Primary output	Source-linked medical chronology, attorney-ready as a standalone deliverable	A broad plaintiff case-intelligence platform — chronologies, case analysis, and drafting support in one workflow
Source-linking depth	Every entry links back to a specific page and Bates number, every time	Cites source records within the platform; depth is oriented to in-platform review
Human QA	Mandatory clinical + QA layer included on every chronology	AI-first workflow; human review is firm-driven inside the tool
Who it serves	Plaintiff and defense PI firms, insurance carriers, IROs, MSP consultants, and adjusters	Plaintiff PI firms
Scope	Focused on the chronology / record-review layer, done deeply and defensibly	Full plaintiff workflow platform across intake, analysis, and drafting
Security & compliance	SOC 2 Type II certified, HIPAA compliant, BAA available	SOC 2 and HIPAA posture; enterprise security for plaintiff firms
Pricing model	Per-chronology or volume subscription (custom)	Platform subscription, typically annual and firm-wide
Integrations	API-ready; feeds clean, source-linked data into Supio, Filevine, Casemark, EvenUp, and custom templates	Integrates with Litify, SmartAdvocate, CasePeer, MyCase, and Filevine

Frequently asked questions

Are InQuery and Supio direct competitors?

They overlap on the chronology, but they are different shapes of product. Supio is a broad plaintiff-side platform that spans intake, case analysis, and drafting. InQuery is a focused engine for one thing done deeply — a source-linked, human-QA'd medical chronology you can hand to any drafter, expert, or platform. Firms sometimes run InQuery upstream to produce the defensible chronology, then work the case inside their platform of choice.

Which is better if I only need clean chronologies?

If the chronology and record review is your actual bottleneck — missing pages, inconsistent timelines, facts that don't survive cross — a focused tool built around page-level source-linking and mandatory QA is usually the faster path than adopting a full platform. InQuery is that focused tool, and it doesn't require moving your case workflow.

Does Supio work for defense firms or carriers?

Supio is built and marketed for plaintiff PI firms. If your work spans defense, insurance carriers, IROs, or MSP consultants — or you need a chronology that doesn't bake in plaintiff-side framing — that is the use case InQuery is built for, which is why our customer mix covers both sides of the v.

Can I use InQuery chronologies inside Supio?

Yes. InQuery exports source-linked chronologies in formats a multi-vendor stack can ingest, and we maintain API connectivity. The page-level and Bates citations carry through, so whatever you build downstream inherits the defensibility of the underlying chronology.

How should I decide which to evaluate first?

Scope the decision. If you want to consolidate intake, analysis, and drafting onto one plaintiff platform, evaluate Supio on that basis. If you want the most defensible chronology layer without changing your workflow, run one of your real files through InQuery and check the source-linking and QA on a true file. You can start here: /get-started

InQuery vs Supio for Personal Injury Firms: Focused Chronology Engine or Full Plaintiff Platform