RedactifyAI vs Redactable: An Honest Comparison for 2026

Short answer: RedactifyAI and Redactable are both cloud-based AI redaction tools, and both cover 40+ PII types. RedactifyAI supports PDF, Word (DOCX/DOC), and image files (TIFF, PNG, JPEG) natively, charges per page starting at $19/mo, and automatically preserves original files in Clio by creating a new redacted version. Redactable supports PDF, TIFF, PNG, and JPG (no native Word or Excel), charges per document starting around $29/mo, and requires users to manually duplicate files in Clio before redacting to avoid overwriting the original. If your documents include Word files, or if original-file safety in Clio matters to your workflow, RedactifyAI is the better fit. If your documents are PDFs or images and you live inside Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, Box, or SharePoint, Redactable's deeper cloud-storage integrations may slot in more cleanly.

Picking a redaction tool really depends on your workflow: which file formats you handle, how many documents you process a month, what systems you need to connect to, and your budget. Marketing pages don't answer those questions honestly. Comparison sites auto-generate tables without actually testing anything. Vendor demos only show what works.

This post compares RedactifyAI and Redactable, two cloud-based AI redaction platforms, based on their public documentation, help centers, and user feedback. Full disclosure: we built RedactifyAI, so we have a stake in this. We've tried to keep it fair. Where Redactable does something better, we'll say so. Where we think RedactifyAI wins, we'll explain why. You can make your own call.

For a wider look at the redaction software landscape, see our comparison of 7 redaction tools.

Both platforms at a glance

Here's what those differences look like in real workflows.

AI detection and accuracy

Both platforms use AI to detect personally identifiable information. Their approaches are different.

RedactifyAI runs a four-layer detection pipeline. Layer one uses regex to catch structured identifiers like Social Security numbers, credit card numbers, and email addresses. Layer two applies machine-learning Named Entity Recognition (NER) to find unstructured entities in narrative text: names, organizations, locations, and dates. Layer three checks each detection against surrounding context to filter false positives. For example, it distinguishes "Will Smith" as a person from "will" in a legal clause. Layer four applies industry-specific rules depending on the document type: legal, healthcare, HR, finance, insurance, or government.

Redactable uses what it calls the "Redaction Wizard," an NLP-based system that scans for PII across 40+ categories. Users pick which categories to scan. The system then applies confidence scoring: it auto-redacts detections above 95% confidence and flags anything in the 70% to 95% range for human review.

Both platforms cover 40+ PII types, so raw coverage is a wash. The real difference is how they decide what's PII. Redactable's NLP system flags detections by confidence score in a single pass. RedactifyAI's four-layer pipeline validates each detection against surrounding context and applies industry-specific rules, which tends to reduce false positives in domain-heavy documents (legal clauses, medical notes, financial statements). If your documents are clean narrative text, either approach works. If your documents are full of domain-specific language that can trip up generic NER, contextual validation matters.

Both platforms let you review and approve detections before finalizing. Neither force-applies redactions without human oversight.

Supported file formats

Both platforms handle PDF and image files. The real difference is Word.

Redactable supports PDF, TIFF, PNG, and JPG, with a maximum file size of 500 MB per file. As of this writing, Redactable's help center confirms these four formats and explicitly tells users to convert Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, Google Docs, and Google Sheets to PDF before uploading for redaction. Redactable handles both native PDFs and scanned PDFs via OCR, and image files (TIFF, PNG, JPG) are processed with OCR as well.

RedactifyAI supports PDF, DOCX, DOC, TIFF (including multi-page), PNG, and JPEG. PDF and image handling is comparable to Redactable. The key addition is native Word support: DOCX and DOC files get redacted without any PDF conversion, and the output stays a Word document.

If your team works mostly with PDFs and images, format support is effectively a tie. The decision comes down to cloud storage integrations, pricing model, and version control instead. But if your documents include Word files (contracts, briefs, correspondence), Redactable's PDF-conversion workflow adds a step that can strip formatting, lose tracked changes, and expose metadata. For legal and HR teams that draft heavily in Word, native DOCX handling is the difference between a one-step and a three-step redaction process.

Integrations and workflow

Clio. Both platforms integrate with Clio Manage, but the workflows are different in an important way.

RedactifyAI's Clio integration imports documents directly from matters (one file or up to 10 at a time), redacts them, and syncs every redacted version back as a new file in the same matter. The original is never touched. There is no manual step required to preserve it.

Redactable's Clio integration takes a different approach. Per their own help center, users are instructed to manually create a copy of each file in Clio before uploading it for redaction, so the original stays intact. If that step gets skipped (or forgotten on a busy day), the original can be replaced. This is a small workflow detail that becomes a serious risk at scale: a paralegal processing 50 matters doesn't want "remember to duplicate every file first" as step zero. RedactifyAI eliminates that step entirely by making preservation the default.

For firms running Clio as their practice management system, both platforms plug into the existing workflow. The difference is whether original-file safety is automatic or depends on a manual checkbox. See our Clio redaction best practices guide for more detail on the end-to-end workflow.

Cloud storage. Redactable integrates with Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, Box, and SharePoint. You can import files directly from these services and return redacted versions in place. RedactifyAI uses an upload-based workflow: you upload files from your device or from Clio. If your team stores documents across multiple cloud services and wants to pull them in without downloading first, Redactable's cloud integrations are a real advantage.

Team collaboration. RedactifyAI includes role-based access control and shared workspaces. Redactable supports real-time team collaboration with multiple users working on the same document. Both platforms generate audit trails.

Version control and document comparison

RedactifyAI stores unlimited redaction versions per document. You can view, download, or restore any previous version. The platform includes side-by-side comparison, letting you view the original and redacted versions together to verify that all intended redactions were applied and nothing was missed. This is particularly useful in court filing redaction workflows where a missed redaction can result in sanctions.

Redactable does not prominently feature version control or side-by-side comparison in its documentation or help center as of the time of writing.

For teams that iterate on redactions (reviewing, adjusting, and re-reviewing before final production), version control prevents accidental loss of work. Side-by-side comparison acts as a final QA step.

Metadata and hidden content handling

Both platforms strip document metadata as part of the redaction process. This includes author names, creation dates, modification history, and other document properties that can expose personal information even when visible text has been properly redacted.

RedactifyAI also removes comments, tracked changes, revision history, and embedded content from supported formats, handling not just the visible PII but the hidden data that many tools miss.

Pricing: how the models compare

RedactifyAI and Redactable use very different pricing structures. RedactifyAI charges per page. Redactable charges per document.

The per-page vs per-document split matters more than it looks.

Per-page pricing (RedactifyAI) means you pay for what you process. A one-page letter and a 200-page discovery production are priced proportionally. This favors teams that handle a mix of short and long documents.

Per-document pricing (Redactable) means every document counts the same regardless of length. That favors teams processing many large documents, since a 500-page PDF costs the same as a one-pager. It penalizes teams that process many short documents, where each one-pager burns a full document credit.

A practical example: a team processing 50 documents averaging 10 pages each (500 total pages) would use 500 pages on RedactifyAI's Starter plan ($19/mo) but 50 documents on Redactable, potentially pushing them to the mid-tier plan (around $99/mo) depending on the exact document limits.

At high volume, Redactable's Expert 2000 tier ($1,299/mo for 2,000 documents) costs significantly more than RedactifyAI's Business tier ($250/mo for 10,000 pages). The right comparison still depends on your average document length.

Security and compliance

Both platforms offer enterprise-grade security. Redactable holds SOC 2 Type II certification and is HIPAA and GDPR compliant, with AES-256 encryption at rest and TLS 1.2+ in transit. RedactifyAI operates on AWS infrastructure with encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access controls, and configurable data retention policies (from immediate deletion after download through multi-year retention).

Both platforms perform permanent redaction. They remove text from the document's content streams rather than painting visual overlays on top. This is non-negotiable for any serious redaction tool, and both meet the bar.

Who should choose RedactifyAI

Law firms using Clio that handle a mix of PDFs and Word documents. The combination of native DOCX support, Clio integration that preserves originals, and side-by-side version comparison fits the legal document production workflow.

Teams that work with Word documents. If your documents include Word files (contracts, briefs, HR letters, correspondence), RedactifyAI redacts DOCX and DOC natively. Redactable requires converting them to PDF first, which strips formatting and adds a workflow step.

Budget-conscious teams with moderate volume. RedactifyAI's per-page pricing and lower entry point ($19/mo for 500 pages vs ~$29/mo for ~15 to 20 documents) offer more flexibility for teams that aren't processing at enterprise scale.

Organizations needing version control and QA. Unlimited version history with side-by-side comparison provides a safety net for iterative redaction workflows, particularly for court filings where a missed redaction has serious consequences.

Who should choose Redactable

Teams deeply integrated with cloud storage. If your document workflow is built around Google Drive, Dropbox, OneDrive, Box, or SharePoint, Redactable's direct integrations eliminate the download-upload-reupload cycle.

High-volume PDF and image workflows. If your documents are a mix of PDFs and images (no Word files) and you process at high volume, Redactable's per-document pricing can be more cost-effective, especially for long documents where per-page pricing would add up.

Teams that prefer user-controlled category selection. Redactable's Redaction Wizard lets users pick which of the 40+ PII categories to scan for up front. If your compliance process requires explicit category-by-category opt-in per document type, that UX may feel more familiar than RedactifyAI's contextual approach.

Teams that value an established track record. Redactable's 4.7/5 ratings on G2 and Capterra, built over years of market presence, give it third-party validation that newer platforms like RedactifyAI haven't accumulated yet.

The bottom line

Both RedactifyAI and Redactable are real redaction tools. They permanently remove data rather than masking it, both use AI detection, and both are built for professional and regulated workflows. The choice really comes down to your specific needs.

If you work with Word documents, need version control with document comparison, use Clio, or want per-page pricing that scales with actual usage, RedactifyAI was built for that workflow.

If you need deep cloud storage integrations, work with PDFs and images only, or need the widest possible PII category coverage, Redactable is worth evaluating.

The best way to decide is to try both with your actual documents. Upload a PDF to RedactifyAI's free tool. No account needed for page one. For full multi-page processing with AI detection across all supported formats, sign up free and test it on your real workflow.

Frequently asked questions

Does Redactable support Word documents?

No. As of this writing, Redactable supports PDF, TIFF, PNG, and JPG files only. Their help center advises users to convert Word, Excel, Google Docs, and Google Sheets to PDF before uploading for redaction. RedactifyAI supports native DOCX and DOC redaction, and the output remains a Word document without any PDF conversion.

What file formats does Redactable support?

Redactable supports PDF, TIFF, PNG, and JPG files, with a maximum file size of 500 MB per file. PDFs can be native or scanned (OCR is applied automatically). Redactable does not natively support Word documents (DOCX, DOC), Excel spreadsheets (XLSX), PowerPoint presentations (PPTX), Google Docs, or Google Sheets. Users working with those formats must save them as PDF before uploading.

Which is more affordable, RedactifyAI or Redactable?

It depends on your document volume and average page count. RedactifyAI uses per-page pricing (starting at $19/mo for 500 pages). Redactable uses per-document pricing (starting around $29/mo for roughly 15 to 20 documents). For teams processing many short documents, RedactifyAI is typically more affordable. For teams processing fewer but very long documents, Redactable's per-document model can be more cost-effective.

Do both tools integrate with Clio?

Yes, but the preservation behavior is different. RedactifyAI's Clio integration automatically creates the redacted version as a new file in the same matter, so the original is never touched. Redactable's help center instructs users to manually duplicate the file in Clio before redaction to keep the original intact. If that manual step is skipped, the original can be replaced.

Which tool has better AI detection?

Both platforms cover 40+ PII types, so raw category count is a wash. The difference is in approach. Redactable uses NLP-based detection with user-selected categories and confidence scoring. RedactifyAI uses a four-layer pipeline (regex, NER, contextual validation, industry-specific rules) that aims to reduce false positives in domain-heavy documents like contracts, medical records, and financial statements. Either works on clean narrative text. Contextual validation matters more when documents contain jargon or terms that generic NER systems misclassify.

Can I try both before deciding?

Yes. RedactifyAI offers a free tier with 10 pages per month and a free tool that requires no signup for single-page redaction. Redactable offers a free trial with 3 documents. Both options let you test with your actual documents before committing.

Can I upload multiple files to RedactifyAI at once?

Yes. RedactifyAI supports uploading up to 10 files in a single step, either from your device or directly from a Clio matter. All documents are processed in parallel. A document switcher lets you move between files during review. Confirm redactions and download the full set when you're done. Redactable does not document a comparable multi-document upload feature.

Is RedactifyAI a Redactable alternative?

Yes. RedactifyAI is a direct alternative to Redactable and addresses a few common gaps. It redacts Word documents (DOCX, DOC) natively without converting to PDF, stores unlimited version history with side-by-side comparison, supports multi-document upload in the UI (up to 10 files at once), and uses per-page rather than per-document pricing. Teams evaluating Redactable alternatives typically choose RedactifyAI for Word-heavy workflows, Clio-integrated law firms, and budgets that don't fit per-document pricing.

Do both tools permanently remove redacted content?

Yes. Both RedactifyAI and Redactable perform permanent redaction. They remove text from the underlying document content, not just paint black boxes over it. That means the redacted text is not recoverable through copy-paste, text search, or metadata inspection. This is the key difference between a redaction tool and simple visual masking in programs like Adobe Reader or Microsoft Word.

Does Redactable have a Clio integration?

Yes. Redactable integrates with Clio Manage. You can import documents from matters, redact them, and return the redacted versions. Two caveats worth knowing: (1) Redactable's help center explicitly instructs users to create a copy of the file in Clio before uploading, so the original isn't lost. This is a manual step the user owns. (2) Multi-document import through the Clio integration isn't documented. RedactifyAI's Clio integration supports importing up to 10 documents from a matter at once and syncs each redacted version back as a new file automatically. The original is preserved without any manual step.