Compare
CaseSharp vs AU primary sources
AU primary sources remain essential for direct source access. CaseSharp is built for a different job: getting from authority to organised work, with research, reader, drafting, and review surfaces in one flow.
← swipe to compare →
| Feature | CaseSharp | AU primary sources |
|---|---|---|
| Best fit | Research, drafting, and organised authority work in one flow. | Direct public access to cases, legislation, and legal materials. |
| Starting point | Plain-English questions, saved authorities, and linked reader workflow. | Title, citation, database, and keyword browsing. |
| Reader workflow | Reader, notes, folders, packets, and saved passages in one workbench. | Primary text access and direct browsing of legal materials. |
| Drafting | Brief drafting, tracked changes, version review, and export. | Reference library, not a drafting workspace. |
| Research handoff | Shareable briefs, packets, matrices, and matter-linked outputs. | You take the source text into your own downstream workflow. |
| Monitoring | Treatment alerts and saved research surfaces. | Check the source library when you need it. |
| Pricing shape | Free and Pro plans, with drafting and workflow features built in. | Public access model. |
Choose CaseSharp when the job is moving from authority to finished work.
Use it when you need cited answers, a readable judgment workflow, organised research surfaces, and a drafting loop with review.
Choose AU primary sources when you want direct public source access.
It remains a strong public library for looking up legal materials directly. Many users will still keep it in their research toolkit.