CasePeer pricing vs Clio pricing: which costs less for a personal injury firm

For a personal injury firm, CasePeer is the only one of the two you can budget from its own website. CasePeer prints $79, $119 and $149 per user per month. Clio prints a single $49 per user floor and attaches no price to any individual plan, to Clio Grow, or to its personal injury add-on. That is the whole comparison in one line: CasePeer tells you what it costs and Clio does not, and for a PI firm the two features you are shopping for are exactly the two Clio declines to price.

Last updated September 2026. CasePeer figures were read directly from casepeer.com/pricing, including its full Compare Plans matrix, on 3 September 2026. Clio figures were read from Clio's own pricing page on 16 August 2026 and are dated rather than restamped, because Clio blocks automated reading and we will not refresh a date we did not re-verify.

What each vendor actually publishes

Both products get sold into the same room: a personal injury firm that wants new claims captured quickly, worked through treatment, and settled without the file falling through a gap. They price in opposite ways, and the difference decides whether you can shortlist on budget or have to sit through four sales calls first.

The personal injury features sit on opposite ends of the two price lists

This is the part that decides most PI evaluations, and it runs in CasePeer's favor.

CasePeer was built for personal injury, so the things a PI firm cannot work without are on the entry plan. Medical treatment tracking, injury tracking, lien and letter of protection tracking, the settlement calculator, case expense tracking and client trust tracking are all checked on Basic at $79 per user per month. You do not buy up a tier to get them.

Clio is a general practice platform, so those same capabilities arrive as Clio for Personal Injury: medical records and bills organized by provider, a settlement calculator, and medical lien and expense tracking. Clio lists it as a separate add-on and publishes no price for it. So a PI firm on Clio is looking at a plan it cannot price, plus a PI add-on it cannot price, and if it wants intake, a third unpriced element on top.

Where CasePeer's own price list is misleading

Being transparent is not the same as being simple, and the CasePeer figure most often repeated is the one least useful to an intake buyer.

In the CasePeer comparison matrix there is a block headed Intake and CRM containing five rows: case source tracking, lead tracking, intake management, intake forms and the intake portal. Every one of them is blank on Basic. All five start on Pro. So the widely quoted line that CasePeer starts at $79 is true about the cheapest plan and wrong about intake software. If lead capture is why you are looking, your real floor is $119 per seat, which is 51 percent higher.

Because CasePeer bills purely per active user with no published minimum and no cap, that gap scales with headcount rather than staying fixed. A five person firm that budgeted from the $79 headline planned $395 a month and gets quoted $595. A fifteen person firm planned $1,185 and gets quoted $1,785. Over a year, that is $7,200 of difference on a fifteen seat account, created entirely by which tier the intake module lives on. We work the full curve through on our CasePeer pricing breakdown.

Clio's intake product is behind the tier you cannot test

Clio Grow is the intake and client acquisition side of Clio, and it is what a firm comparing against CasePeer Pro is really comparing against. Clio's own plan comparison states that Grow is included in Elite and Elite Work and available as an add-on for Core and Signature. It is not available on Starter at all, which means the one plan carrying the published $49 figure is the one plan that cannot run intake.

Elite is also the only Clio plan with no self-serve free trial. So the tier that runs intake is simultaneously the tier you cannot price and the tier you cannot try. That is a genuinely awkward combination for a buyer doing a structured evaluation, and it is the main reason Clio consumes a full sales cycle before you learn whether it was ever in your range. Our Clio pricing page walks through what each tier does publish, and we keep a separate Clio Grow alternative comparison for firms weighing the products rather than the invoices.

What a real PI firm ends up paying

Take a ten person personal injury firm: three attorneys, four case managers and three intake staff, all of whom need logins.

On CasePeer, that firm needs Pro for intake, so ten seats at $119 is $1,190 a month, or $14,280 a year. Every PI specific feature is already included at that tier. The known unknowns are the e-signature add-on, which CasePeer marks as an add-on on all three tiers without publishing a rate, and data migration, which shows as optional on every tier. If the firm also needs API access to push data into a reporting tool, that moves all ten seats to Advanced at $149, which is $17,880 a year.

On Clio, the same firm cannot produce a number at all. It knows the floor is $49 per user, that Starter is ruled out because it cannot run Grow, that Core or Signature would need the Grow add-on and the PI add-on, and that Elite bundles Grow but is unpriced. There are four unknowns and one published floor that does not apply to any configuration the firm can actually use.

That asymmetry is the honest headline. It does not prove CasePeer is cheaper, because nobody outside Clio can check what Clio quotes, and quote-only vendors often come in under published competitors. What it does mean is that one of these two can be modeled against your hiring plan this afternoon and the other cannot.

The costs that sit outside both price lists

Two line items are worth pricing separately whichever way you go.

The first is signing. Personal injury intake ends in a signed retainer, and on CasePeer e-signature is an add-on on all three tiers, including the $149 top plan, at a rate the vendor does not publish. Some firms solve this by keeping signature outside the case management contract entirely and running retainers through a standalone document e-signing tool, which also keeps the signing workflow intact if you later switch platforms. Either way, get the number before you sign, not after.

The second is the intake platform itself. CasePeer lists both Captorra and Lead Docket among its integrations, and both of those are dedicated intake products that overlap with CasePeer's own Pro tier intake module. Firms running a staffed intake desk around the clock often buy one of them and bolt it on. If that is your plan, the comparison you should be running is not CasePeer against those vendors, it is CasePeer Pro alone against CasePeer Pro plus a second quoted contract. We compare that specific stack in Lead Docket pricing against CasePeer and Lawmatics.

Which one to shortlist

If your firm is personal injury only, wants medical, lien and settlement tracking on the entry plan, and wants to know its annual number before taking a call, CasePeer is the straightforward pick, and you should budget from $119 per seat rather than $79.

If your firm does PI alongside other practice areas, already runs trust accounting and billing in one system, or wants a platform its staff already know, Clio is a reasonable shortlist entry, but accept that you will not learn what it costs without a sales conversation, and ask specifically which plan Grow requires for your firm and what the PI add-on costs on top.

Ask both for total annual cost at your current headcount and at 1.5 and 2 times that, so you see the curve rather than one point on it. Per seat pricing punishes intake heavy firms, because an intake specialist seat costs the same as an attorney seat, and PI intake departments grow with case volume. Our wider survey of how much legal intake software costs covers the rest of this market, including the vendors that publish nothing at all.

One disclosure worth repeating, since we sell against both: Consultations is priced flat per firm at a planned $49 to $299 a month and is not purchasable today. That per firm rather than per seat structure is exactly the thing we would argue for, so weigh our arithmetic accordingly and check every figure above against the vendor before you sign anything.