Comparison

CaseDelta vs Supio

We will not pretend our chronologies are more accurate than Supio's. Theirs are good, and human-reviewed. The difference is shape, speed without a queue, and scope: Delta runs your whole operation, not just the document.

Accuracy is table stakes, so we compete on shape

Supio is well capitalized, plaintiff-native, and backed by Thomson Reuters, and it powered analysis behind a $495M verdict. Its chronologies are clean and source-pinned. We are not going to win a chronology-accuracy bake-off, and we will not claim to. The difference is that Supio is a product you feed your files to, and Delta is an associate that drives the tools you already run and does the work around the document too.

No review queue, and a price you can see

Supio's human-expert review is a real trust anchor, and it is also a speed and cost ceiling: you wait on a queue and you negotiate a quote. Delta delivers cited chronologies in minutes with no review queue, and CaseDelta is $349 per user, per month. flat, published, self-serve. For a 5 to 50 attorney firm, transparent and self-serve beats an enterprise sales motion.

The whole job, not just the document

Supio hands back outputs. Delta keeps going: it drafts the demand, emails the adjuster, updates the case file, calculates damages, and logs the time across Clio, Filevine, your email, and billing. It is one associate doing the operation, not one more system to feed.

Supio produces excellent documents on a review queue. Delta does the whole job across your tools, in minutes, at a published price.

When Supio is the better fit

If you are a larger plaintiff or mass-tort firm whose primary need is best-in-class, human-reviewed medical chronologies and case ledgers, and you value the Thomson Reuters relationship and the enterprise success team, Supio is an excellent, proven choice. CaseDelta is the better fit when you want an operational associate across your whole stack at a transparent, self-serve price.