How JurisGrid researches and scores India's data providers
JurisGrid reviews India's legaltech, verification and public data providers and scores the ones that sell data on nine criteria. The score measures how easily a developer, an operations team or an AI agent can reach and use a provider's data, using public evidence only.
Reviewed
Every provider page, comparison and ranking on JurisGrid reads from the same records, so a score, a price or a coverage figure cannot differ between two pages. Comparison and ranking files hold only editorial text: the short answer, the reasons to choose each provider and the FAQ.
Which providers get listed, and which get a score?
Any provider with a public website that serves Indian legal, verification or public data can be listed, and providers with a data product are scored from 0 to 100. Workflow products such as contract management, e-sign tools and online dispute resolution platforms are profiled but not scored.
The rubric rewards data that someone can obtain and use, so it would be unfair to workflow software and meaningless to its buyers. For the same reason, head to head comparison pages are generated only inside data sectors such as court data, company data, background verification and property data.
What are the scoring criteria and weights?
Nine criteria are each rated on a 0 to 4 level scale with written anchors, and the score is the sum of weight times level divided by 4, rounded to a whole number out of 100.
| Criterion | Weight | What it measures |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Data coverage and depth | 20 | Breadth of sources in the provider's data type and depth of each record |
| 2. Freshness and update cadence | 12 | How current the data is and whether the cadence is stated |
| 3. API availability | 15 | A documented REST API that a customer can reach |
| 4. MCP and agent readiness | 13 | A public MCP server, machine readable docs, agent friendly sign-up |
| 5. Pricing transparency | 12 | Whether prices are public and how predictable the bill is |
| 6. Self-serve sign-up and free trial | 10 | Whether you can start without a sales call, and try before paying |
| 7. Documentation and developer experience | 8 | Public docs, examples, error reference, sandbox |
| 8. Track record and trust | 5 | Years in operation, named customers, published security or compliance posture |
| 9. Product depth beyond data | 5 | Editorial value add, search UI, analytics, workflow tools |
| Total | 100 | Score = sum of weight times level divided by 4, rounded |
Level anchors
| Criterion | Level 0 | Level 1 | Level 2 | Level 3 | Level 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Data coverage and depth | No data product | One source or a narrow slice | Several sources, clear gaps | Most national sources in its data type | National coverage across sources in its data type, with depth (documents, history, linked records) |
| Freshness and update cadence | Not published | Static or annual | Monthly | Weekly, cadence stated | Daily or near real time, cadence stated |
| API availability | None | Mentioned, no public detail | On request, docs behind sales | Public docs, key issued after approval | Public docs and a key you can get the same day |
| MCP and agent readiness | None | Plans stated only | Machine readable spec (OpenAPI) or llms.txt, no MCP | Public MCP server, limited tools | Public MCP server covering the core data, documented, with agent friendly auth |
| Pricing transparency | Not published | "Contact sales" only | Plans named, prices partly shown | Full public price list | Full public price list with per call or per unit pricing and a calculator or clear unit |
| Self-serve sign-up and free trial | Sales only | Demo request form | Self-serve sign-up, paid from the first call | Self-serve plus a time limited trial | Self-serve plus standing free credit or a free tier, no contract |
| Documentation and developer experience | None public | Marketing page only | Public reference, thin | Reference plus examples and errors | Reference, examples, errors, sandbox or try it console, changelog |
| Track record and trust | Unknown | Under 2 years, no public signals | 2 to 5 years or some named customers | Over 5 years with named customers | Over 10 years, or wide named adoption, plus published security or compliance posture |
| Product depth beyond data | Raw data only | Basic search UI | Search plus alerts or dashboards | Rich research or workflow product | Editorial content (headnotes, annotations) or deep analytics on top of the data |
Swipe for more columns
Why does the rubric weight access so heavily?
The rubric is written for readers who need data they can reach today, so it gives 58 of 100 points to access: API, MCP server, pricing, self-serve sign-up and documentation. Coverage and freshness carry 32 points, and track record and product depth carry 10.
A developer or an AI agent cannot evaluate a product that sits behind a sales call. A documented API, a public MCP server, a price list and a sign-up that works the same day let them test a provider in an afternoon, which is why those traits earn the most points.
This rubric rewards data you can reach without a sales call. If you buy on editorial quality or on a bundled research product, weigh criteria 8 and 9, track record and product depth, more heavily than JurisGrid does. Established research databases often outscore newer API providers on those two criteria, and the pages show it.
A rating of Not published scores low on the transparency criteria (freshness, pricing, self-serve sign-up and documentation) by design. The low level reflects missing public information, not a judgement that the product is poor.
Where do the facts come from, and how fresh are they?
Every rating rests on public evidence: the provider's own pages, documentation, pricing page and server cards. Each rating stores an evidence sentence, a source URL and the date checked, and data sectors are reviewed monthly and whenever a correction is applied.
Coverage figures and prices are quoted as the provider publishes them, with the date, and JurisGrid does not verify record counts. Where a provider's own pages disagree, for example on a tool count, the entry says so. An unknown is shown as Not published rather than guessed.
Each page shows its own reviewed date, and this release was reviewed on 10 Nov 2026. The scores come from the evidence stored in each provider record, and the build computes totals and ranks, so no comparison or ranking text can change a score or an order.
How do I correct or add a listing?
Send a request through the form at /submit/ with a public source URL. Providers, customers and AI agents can all ask for a correction or a new listing, and applied corrections appear in the change log with the date.
Requests are reviewed on a regular cycle. A request that cites a public page can change a rating; a request without a public source can still prompt a re-check. Listing is free, and a rating changes only when the evidence changes.
How can I reuse this data?
The JSON data files published on JurisGrid are licensed under CC BY 4.0. You can copy, adapt and redistribute them, including commercially, if you credit JurisGrid and link to https://jurisgrid.com/.
The files are /data/providers.json and /data/scores.json, and /llms.txt gives AI agents a short guide to the site. The licence covers the data files; page text and design are not covered unless a page says otherwise.
What changed recently?
The latest 30 dated changes from provider records.
- Deepvue: Initial listing created from public pages and research notes.
- Didit: Initial listing created from public pages and research notes.
- FRS Labs: Initial listing created from public pages and research notes.
- IDcentral: Initial listing created from public pages and research notes.
- IDspay: Initial listing created from public pages and research notes.
- Neokred: Initial listing created from public pages and research notes.
- ScoreMe: Initial listing created from public pages and research notes.
- Thirdwatch MCA India (Apify actor): Initial listing created from public pages and research notes.
- VerifyMe: Initial listing created from public pages and research notes.
- WhiteBooks: Initial listing created from public pages and research notes.
- 4Closure: Initial listing created from public pages.
- Airacle: Initial listing created from public pages.
- Arya.ai Apex APIs: Initial listing created from public pages reviewed for the IndiaCos endpoint-theme rankings.
- BAANKNET: Initial listing created from public pages.
- Banglarbhumi: Initial listing created from public pages.
- BankEAuctions: Initial listing created from public pages.
- Bhoomi (Karnataka): Initial listing created from public pages.
- Bhu-Naksha: Initial listing created from public pages.
- Bhulekh Odisha: Initial listing created from public pages.
- BizKonnect: Initial listing created from public pages reviewed for the IndiaCos endpoint-theme rankings.
- Copyright Office India Register Search: Initial listing created from public pages, with every score tied to a source URL.
- Corpbiz: Initial listing created from public pages, with every score tied to a source URL.
- DILRMP (Department of Land Resources): Initial listing created from public pages.
- Dun & Bradstreet India: Initial listing created from public pages reviewed for the IndiaCos endpoint-theme rankings.
- EasyLeadz: Initial listing created from public pages reviewed for the IndiaCos endpoint-theme rankings.
- eCourtsIndia: Added LegalCheck pricing, electoral roll endpoints and the full endpoint list from the live API docs.
- ForeclosureIndia: Initial listing created from public pages.
- Ghar.tv Ready Reckoner: Initial listing created from public pages.
- GHMC Property Tax: Initial listing created from public pages.
- GSTIN API: Initial listing created from public pages reviewed for the IndiaCos endpoint-theme rankings.
Missing or out of date?
Request a change or add a provider. It is free and needs no account.
Request a change