Google Vault vs. eDiscovery platforms vs. investigation tools: what's the difference?
Compliance teams shopping for software in this space encounter three distinct categories of tool, and the categories are often conflated. Here's a plain-English breakdown of what each one actually does.
Why the confusion exists
Google Vault, Relativity, Logikcull, Exterro, and tools like ScoopVault are all described, in various contexts, as solutions for "legal holds", "eDiscovery", or "workplace investigations". The overlap in marketing language obscures genuine differences in what these products are designed to do.
The confusion has a real cost. Teams that choose a tool based on category labels rather than workflow fit often find themselves either paying for capabilities they don't need or missing capabilities that their actual process requires.
Category 1: Archiving and legal hold tools
Examples: Google Vault, Microsoft Purview (Hold component), Mimecast
These tools are built around preservation. Their primary purpose is ensuring that data covered by a legal hold is not deleted, modified, or otherwise tampered with while a matter is active. Secondary capabilities typically include keyword search, date-range filtering, and export.
What they do well: Preserving data at scale, placing custodian holds, exporting data in standard formats (MBOX, PST, JSON metadata). For organisations with regulatory obligations, this capability is non-negotiable.
Where they stop: Export is the endpoint. There is no analytical layer. Finding what matters in a 50,000-message export is entirely up to the team.
Category 2: eDiscovery review platforms
Examples: Relativity, Logikcull, Everlaw, Disco
eDiscovery platforms were designed for litigation support, primarily for external legal teams reviewing large document sets for responsiveness and privilege. They provide document review workflows, coding tools, privilege logging, and production capabilities.
What they do well: High-volume document review, attorney-reviewer workflows, privilege log generation, Bates numbering, and production to opposing counsel.
Where they may be more than a focused internal workflow needs: Full eDiscovery platforms are commonly designed for litigation-scale review and production. Some internal teams may prefer a narrower workflow, depending on the matter, review volume, legal requirements, and available resources.
Category 3: Investigation and analysis tools
Examples: ScoopVault, i-Sight, Case IQ
These tools are built around the internal investigation workflow: not just preserving or reviewing data, but analysing it to reach a structured finding. They typically integrate with the underlying data source (Google Workspace, Microsoft 365), apply analysis automatically, and produce an output designed for compliance and HR teams rather than litigation attorneys.
What they do well: Scoped collection with documented criteria, automated analysis that surfaces relevant patterns, structured findings with audit trails, outputs usable by non-legal stakeholders.
Where to watch: AI-assisted analysis tools require careful evaluation of how findings are generated and what review is applied. Any finding that could affect employment decisions or regulatory submissions needs human review before action.
Choosing the right fit
For most in-house compliance teams operating in Google Workspace, the practical question is: do you need all three categories, or can one well-chosen tool handle your actual workflow?
If investigations stay internal and don't regularly require litigation-scale review or external production, Vault plus a focused investigation workspace may fit the workflow. The organisation should choose tooling based on matter requirements, legal obligations, evidence volume, and required production capabilities.
If your matters routinely go to external litigation, you need all three, and the question becomes which eDiscovery platform integrates most cleanly with your Vault exports.
Turn Google Vault exports into answers
ScoopVault connects authorised teams to Google Vault, helps them collect and review email evidence, and produces source-linked investigation aids within a controlled, auditable workflow. The reviewer remains responsible for scope, interpretation, and decisions.
Learn more →