If you’re comparing Casepeer vs Clio, you’re likely not asking which software is better.
You’re asking something more practical:
- “Which one fits how my PI firm actually runs?”
- “Am I going to outgrow one of these?”
- “Do I want flexibility… or structure?”
This comparison focuses on real-world PI firm workflows, not surface-level feature lists.
High-Level Difference (Before We Go Deep)
At a strategic level, these two platforms are built with very different assumptions.
- Casepeer assumes you run a personal injury–focused firm with repeatable processes and high case volume.
- Clio assumes you want a flexible, general-purpose platform that adapts to many practice areas.
Neither approach is wrong — but choosing the wrong philosophy creates friction fast.
Casepeer Overview (PI-First by Design)
Casepeer is purpose-built for personal injury law. Almost everything in the platform assumes:
- Intake matters
- Medical records matter
- Settlements matter
- Deadlines matter
Strengths PI firms notice quickly:
- PI-specific workflows baked in
- Intake → case → settlement visibility
- Automation designed around PI milestones
- Reporting that speaks the language of PI firms
The tradeoff?
You’re buying into Casepeer’s way of doing things.
Clio Overview (Flexibility Over Specialization)
Clio is one of the most widely adopted legal platforms — and for good reason.
What Clio does exceptionally well:
- Clean, intuitive UI
- Huge app ecosystem
- Works across many practice areas
- Easy onboarding for small teams
For PI firms, Clio often becomes the hub, with other tools layered on top for:
- Intake
- Medical records
- Advanced reporting
That flexibility is powerful — but it can also mean more setup and integration work.
Workflow Philosophy: Structure vs Customization
This is where most PI firms make (or break) their decision.
Casepeer’s Approach
- Opinionated workflows
- Clear stages and pipelines
- Less setup required to “do PI correctly”
- Harder to bend outside PI norms
Great if you want:
“Show me the right way to run this firm.”
Clio’s Approach
- Open-ended workflows
- Custom fields and integrations
- Works how you configure it
- Requires more intentional setup
Great if you want:
“Let us build this around how we already operate.”
Reporting & Visibility (Where PI Firms Feel the Difference)
Casepeer shines when firms want:
- Case pipeline visibility
- Settlement tracking
- Intake-to-resolution metrics
- PI-centric reporting without custom builds
Clio can do reporting well — but often requires:
- Add-ons
- Custom reports
- External BI or integrations
In short:
- Casepeer = reporting out of the box
- Clio = reporting via ecosystem
Pricing & Scaling Considerations
Neither platform publishes simple pricing tables, but perception matters.
- Casepeer pricing tends to scale with PI case volume and users
- Clio pricing scales with users + add-ons
For small or early-stage PI firms:
- Clio often feels cheaper and easier to start with
For high-volume PI firms:
- Casepeer often justifies cost through efficiency and automation
(This is why firms often start with Clio and graduate to Casepeer — or vice versa, depending on growth pain.)
Which One Is Better for Your PI Firm?
Casepeer is usually the better fit if:
- You are 100% PI-focused
- Intake volume is steady or growing
- You want structured workflows
- You prefer “best practice” guardrails
- You value PI-specific reporting
Clio is usually the better fit if:
- You want flexibility
- You handle multiple practice areas
- You like choosing best-of-breed tools
- Your firm is smaller or earlier-stage
- You want a broad ecosystem
Common Mistake PI Firms Make Here
The biggest mistake isn’t choosing the “wrong” software.
It’s choosing:
- Flexibility when they need structure, or
- Structure when they need flexibility
That mismatch is what creates frustration — not missing features.
If you want a system that feels like it was designed specifically for PI, Casepeer usually wins.
If you want a system that can grow, bend, and integrate as your firm evolves, Clio often makes more sense.
The right answer depends less on features — and more on how mature your operations already are.