Home › Filevine vs CASEpeer for personal injury firms

Filevine vs CASEpeer for personal injury firms

Researched, not hands-on testedPrices checked: 2026-10-31Sources: each vendor's official pages

Filevine vs CASEpeer for PI law firms: CASEpeer publishes per-user pricing ($90–$160), Filevine builds custom packages. PI features, intake and texting compared from official pages.

Our shortlist

1. CASEpeer

Best for: Small and mid-size PI firms that want published prices and PI workflows on day one

CASEpeer is built only for personal injury. Basic ($90/user/month) includes statute alerts, settlement negotiations and medical treatment tracking; Pro ($130) adds intake management and unlimited two-way texting.

Published pricing: Basic $90, Pro $130, Advanced $160 per user/month. No long-term contract or setup fee (per FAQ). Source (2026-10-31)

Built specifically for personal injury firms
Basic: automated statute alerts, settlement negotiations, medical treatment tracking, case expense tracking
Pro: client intake management, unlimited two-way texting (with images), 50+ extra reports, 8am IQ legal AI
Advanced: intake investigator portal, case grades, API access

Visit official site →

2. Filevine

Best for: Growing PI or multi-practice litigation firms that want a configurable platform with add-on packages

Filevine sells custom-built packages (Matters, Intake, Depositions, Signatures) plus extensions such as Timely court deadlines and Periscope analytics. Expect a demo and a quote.

Published pricing: No published prices. Its pricing page says "All packages are custom built for your team's needs" (Book a Demo). Source (2026-10-31)

Packages listed: Matters, Intake, Depositions, Signatures
Matters: matter, document and deadline management, document assembly, billing and online payments
Intake package: capture, qualify and route leads
Extensions include Periscope analytics, Timely court-deadline generation and a client portal
Personal Injury listed among practice areas served

Visit official site →

Side-by-side (from official pages)

Product	Published pricing	Trial / buying	Source
CASEpeer PI case management	Basic $90, Pro $130, Advanced $160 per user/month. No long-term contract or setup fee (per FAQ).	Demo	Official page 2026-10-31
Filevine PI case management	No published prices. Its pricing page says "All packages are custom built for your team's needs" (Book a Demo).	Demo; site also advertises a free trial of its LOIS AI platform, no credit card	Official page 2026-10-31

USD prices as shown on official pages on the date above; they may exclude taxes, fees and add-ons. We do not assign scores or star ratings.

The short answer

If you practice only PI and want to know the price before a sales call, CASEpeer is the easier comparison because its tiers are published. If you also handle other litigation, want deposition and AI drafting tools in the same platform, or need heavy customization, get a Filevine quote and compare the total cost per user, including the Intake package and any extensions.

Questions to ask both vendors

What does migration from our current system cost and include?
Is two-way texting included, and does it work in Spanish (Unicode, MMS images)?
How are medical providers, records requests, liens and settlement disbursements tracked?
Do you have templates for California workers' comp if we handle WC alongside PI?
What is the minimum contract term?

See the wider PI case management shortlist and our legal intake software guide.

Our own service, not an affiliate link.

Need bilingual people, not just software?

This site is owned by SupportMates LLC. We provide bilingual (English/Spanish) remote staff based in Guatemala to US law firms and businesses for intake, case follow-up and paralegal support supervised by your attorneys, at one monthly rate.

Book a 15-minute call Calculate your savings

FAQ

Does Filevine publish prices?

Not on our retrieval date. Its pricing page says all packages are custom built for each team, and asks you to book a demo.

Did you test either product?

No. This comparison is researched from official pages, not hands-on tested.