Category Archives: SaaS

Why Most SaaS Architectures Fall Short for Enterprise-Grade AI

By John Patzakis and Chas Meier

SaaS Architectures Fall Short for Enterprise-Grade AI

As organizations accelerate adoption of AI to support legal, compliance, security, and business operations, one principle is becoming clear: the underlying deployment architecture matters as much as the model itself. Many enterprise AI initiatives fail not because the technology is immature, but because the environment in which it operates was never designed for high-volume, sensitive, or tightly regulated use cases.

Traditional multi-tenant SaaS architectures—where numerous customers share the same provider-controlled environment—excel at delivering standardized, lower-risk business applications. But applying that same model to AI workloads involving privileged, regulated, or company sensitive data introduces material limitations in governance, security, performance, and operational feasibility.

Below are the core architectural constraints that legal, IT, and security leaders consistently raise as they evaluate AI strategies.

  1. Data Governance, Privacy, and Regulatory Control
    Most commercial SaaS AI platforms require customer data—or derivative artifacts such as embeddings, logs, or temporary working sets—to be processed within the provider’s environment. Even with strong encryption and contractual controls, this shift of data outside the enterprise’s controlled boundary introduces challenges that many legal and security teams cannot accept.

    Key concerns include:
    Loss of direct data sovereignty. Once data is inside a vendor’s multi-tenant environment, the organization no longer controls how it is stored, moved, or isolated.
    Jurisdiction and residency risks. Multi-tenant SaaS services often replicate or route data across regions for load or resilience purposes, complicating GDPR, HIPAA, ITAR, or sector-specific compliance requirements.
    Governance of secondary artifacts. AI systems often generate embeddings, caches, metadata, and diagnostic logs. Ensuring these artifacts adhere to the same retention, destruction, and legal hold rules become significantly more complex in a shared environment.

    For legal departments, eDiscovery teams, and CISOs, these factors create an expanded compliance burden that is often disproportionate to the value of outsourcing AI workloads.
  2. Assurance of Isolation and Auditability
    Large enterprises increasingly demand verifiable guarantees—not merely assurances—that:
    • Their data is isolated from other tenants
    • Their information is not used for model training unless explicitly authorized
    • Every transaction is auditable and traceable
    • No shared services introduce inadvertent cross-tenant visibility

    While reputable AI providers enforce strong separation controls, multi-tenant architecture inherently increases the assurance burden. The organization must rely on the vendor’s internal controls, certifications, and change management practices—none of which it can independently verify.

    For regulated entities, this can be an unacceptable dependency, particularly where privileged legal data, sensitive communications, or proprietary research is involved.
  3. Performance and Scalability Under AI Workloads
    AI inference and large-scale analysis require sustainable compute performance. Multi-tenant environments, by design, pool capacity across customers. Even when quotas or isolation tiers exist, resource contention and dynamic scaling can introduce variability.

    For enterprise workloads—such as legal investigations, regulatory responses, internal audits, or global compliance monitoring—performance variability translates directly into operational delays and risk.

    Organizations routinely raise:
    Deterministic performance requirements for time-sensitive matters
    Workload isolation needs when running tens of thousands of queries or document classifications
    The high cost of dedicated capacity tiers in third-party SaaS models

    These are structural limitations, not configuration issues.
  4. Data Movement, Transfer Overhead, and Operational Disruption
    Before any SaaS-based AI workflow begins, enterprises must stage or transfer large volumes of data—including emails, documents, chat messages, or historical repositories—into the vendor’s cloud environment.

    This poses several obstacles:
    Time and bandwidth constraints when transferring terabytes or petabytes
    Chain-of-custody and legal hold considerations during data movement
    Jurisdictional restrictions when data cannot transit or be stored outside specific regions
    Ongoing synchronization challenges as new data is generated

    For legal, compliance, and security teams, these issues often make multi-tenant SaaS unsuitable for high-value unstructured data.
  5. Limited Customization and Restricted Model Control
    Most multi-tenant AI SaaS offerings operate within a shared, standardized stack. This limits an enterprise’s ability to:
    • Tailor models to domain-specific content or workflows
    • Implement custom inference pipelines
    • Integrate internal security, monitoring, or policy engines
    • Maintain visibility into how models process and route sensitive information

    For departments handling privileged, confidential, or regulated data, this lack of deep configurability hampers both innovation and risk mitigation.

The Industry Shift Toward AI-in-Place Architectures
To address these concerns, organizations are increasingly adopting AI-in-Place models—deploying AI capabilities directly onto systems, repositories, and environments they already control.

AI-in-place allows enterprises to:
• Keep all source data behind the firewall or within their private cloud tenancy
• Maintain full sovereignty over models, embeddings, logs, and derived artifacts
• Enforce internal security, retention, and access policies without exception
• Optimize performance around their own infrastructure and workflows
• Reduce compliance complexity by avoiding data egress entirely

This architectural shift reflects a maturing understanding: the value of AI is maximized only when it can operate where sensitive data already resides.

X1 Enterprise: A Modern Foundation for AI-in-Place
X1 Enterprise—with its patented distributed micro-indexing architecture—has emerged as a leading platform for organizations adopting AI-in-Place strategies.

X1 enables:
In-place analysis without data movement
Deploy LLMs, embeddings, and AI pipelines directly to endpoints, repositories, and cloud data sources—without exporting or copying sensitive content.
Enterprise-wide visibility across unstructured data
Email, documents, chat, archives, and cloud sources can be searched, tagged, classified, and analyzed at scale from a single federated index.
High-assurance governance
All data remains within the enterprise’s security boundary or isolated single-tenant cloud, supporting legal holds, audits, discovery, and regulatory requirements.
Scalable performance tailored to the enterprise’s environment
Micro-indexing distributes compute to where data lives, eliminating bottlenecks inherent in centralized SaaS architectures.

For legal, IT, and security leaders seeking to implement AI responsibly, X1 provides a practical and compliant path forward.

See AI-in-Place in Action
We invite you to join our upcoming webinar on Wednesday, December 10, where our team will present:
• A detailed look at X1’s new AI-in-Place capabilities
• Architectural considerations for legal, IT, and CISO stakeholders
• A live demonstration of enterprise-scale AI applied directly to live data sources

Register here to secure your spot.

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, Cloud Data, Corporations, Cybersecurity, Data Audit, Data Governance, eDiscovery, eDiscovery & Compliance, Enterprise AI, Enterprise eDiscovery, Information Governance, SaaS

Important SaaS Architecture Considerations for Legal Tech Software

by Kunjan Zaveri

With nearly all eDiscovery software now being offered on a SaaS basis, the cloud architecture decisions supporting the vendor’s platform are pivotal. Decisions on architecture design can lead to either very successful or very poor outcomes. The right architecture depends on the company’s SaaS delivery strategy, their customer profile and size, and the volume and nature of their anticipated transactions. These considerations are especially important in the legal tech space, which has some unique requirements and market dynamics such as heighted security and customization for large clients, and channel support (requiring platform portability), which are generally not as relevant to general SaaS architecture considerations.

At a high level, it is important to understand the two main SaaS architectures: multi-tenancy and single-tenancy. In cloud computing, tenancy refers to the allocation of computing resources in a cloud environment. In SaaS, tenancy is categorized into two formats: single-tenant SaaS and multi-tenant SaaS. In the single-tenant SaaS environment, each client has a dedicated infrastructure. Single-tenant products can’t be shared between clients and the buyer can customize the software according to their requirements. Multi-tenancy is an architecture where a single instance of a software application serves multiple customers. In a multi-tenant SaaS environment, many organizations share the same software and usually the same database (or at least a portion of a common database) to save and store data.

Single-tenancy and multi-tenancy SaaS each have their advantages and disadvantages, and the selection of either approach by a legal tech SaaS vendor should depend on their overall product and go-to-market strategy. Here are some of the advantages of a single-tenancy architecture:

1. Improved Security

With single-tenancy, each customer’s data is completely isolated from other customers with fewer and more trusted points of entry. The result is better overall security from outside threats and the prevention of one customer accessing another’s sensitive information, either intentionally or inadvertently.

2. Reliable Operations and Individual Tenant Scalability

Single-tenant SaaS architectures are considered more reliable as there is not a single point of failure that can affect all customers. For example, if one client uploads a massive amount of corrupt data that taxes resources and crashes the system, it won’t affect another clients’ instances. Single-tenancy is actually more scalable within an individual client instance, while multi-tenancy can better scale the addition and management of many customers.

3. Customization

Many large customers need specific features or unique security measures that require custom development, which can be very difficult in a multi-tenancy environment. Companies that use single-tenancy architecture can upgrade their services individually. Rather than waiting for the software provider to launch a universal update, users can update their accounts as soon as the download is available or decline patches that are not needed by a specific customer.  

4. Portability

With single-tenancy, a vendor can host their platform in their own SaaS environment, a channel partner’s environment, or enable their customers to install the solution behind their firewall or in their private cloud. Multi-tenancy SaaS does not allow for this flexibility.

Multi-tenant SaaS Advantages

Multi-tenancy is commonly utilized as most SaaS offerings are consumer or otherwise high-volume commoditized offerings, which necessitates such an architecture. Here are some of the key advantages of multi-tenant SaaS architecture over single-tenant:

1. Lower Costs

Since computing services are all shared under a multi-tenant architecture, it can cost less than a single-tenant structure. Scaling across the customer base is easier as new users utilize the same uniform software and resources as all the other customers.

2. Efficient Resources Spread Across all Customers

Because all resources are shared and uniform, multi-tenant architecture uses resources that, once engineered, offer optimum efficiency. Since it’s a changing environment where resources are accessed simultaneously, multi-tenant SaaS software needs to be engineered to have the capacity for powering multiple customers at once.

3. Fewer Maintenance Costs

Maintenance costs are usually associated with a SaaS subscription and aren’t passed through to the customer or incurred by the channel partner like with a single-tenant structure.

4. Shared Data Centers

Unlike a single-tenant environment, a vendor doesn’t have to create a new instance within the datacenter for every new user. Customers have to use a common infrastructure that removes the need to continually add partitioned instances for each new tenant.

So which architecture is the right one for a legal tech SaaS vendor? It completely depends on the company’s strategy, pricing, and nature of the offering. To illustrate this point, consider the examples of two hypothetical legal tech SaaS vendors: Acme and Widget.

Acme provides do it yourself data processing on a high-volume, low-cost basis, handling about 700 matters a week at an average project value of $400. Acme’s customer base is primarily small to medium size law firms and service providers who have multiple projects on different cases over the course of a year. Acme’s clients do not want to fuss with hardware or any software maintenance requirements.

Widget offers an enterprise-grade compliance and security data analytics platform, sold at an average sale price (ASP) of $400,000, but as high as $2 million for a dedicated annual license. Widget has 32 active enterprise customers and hopes to grow to 70 customers in three years with an even higher ASP. About a third of Widget’s clients prefer that Widget host the solution in Widget’s cloud instance. Another group of clients are large financial institutions that, for security and governance purposes, insist on self-hosting the platform in their own private cloud. The rest are instances sold through channel partners who prefer to host the platform themselves and provide value added services. Many Widget customers have particularized compliance requirements and other unique circumstances that require customization to support their needs.

For Acme, the correct choice is multi-tenancy. Acme offers a commoditized SaaS service, and it needs a high volume of individual customers to drive more transactional revenue growth. A single-tenancy architecture would prevent the company from scaling, would be too expensive, and unmanageable. However, some legal tech companies who have opted for this architectural approach have made the mistake of pursuing a more low-market commoditized strategy without making the initial considerable investment in engineering expertise and resources to build such an architecture.

In contrast, single-tenancy is the optimal architecture choice for Widget. While single-tenancy cloud is slightly more challenging to support, Widgets’ premium enterprise offering requires portability for the channel and rigorous security minded clients as well as customization, and thus is a clear fit for single-tenancy. In the future, Widget may have closer to a thousand customers or be acquired by a much larger company that will want to deploy the solution to their extensive client base. It would be a good idea for Widget to architect their single-tenancy platform in a manner, such as employing microservices, that will allow it to readily port it to a multi-tenancy environment when warranted.

So, for legal tech executives, the question to ask is whether your strategy and product offering is more in line with Widget or Acme. But the bottom line is to make sure your strategy drives your choice of architecture and not the other way around.

Kunjan Zaveri is the Chief Technology Officer of X1. (www.x1.com)

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, Cloud Data, eDiscovery, Enterprise eDiscovery, SaaS

Usage-Based Pricing Model Increasingly Driving eDiscovery Software Growth

by John Patzakis

Legal Tech software CEOs often grapple with two competing challenges: Growing revenue in a manner that supports how customers buy their products for their individual cases, while at the same time maximizing shareholder value by recording recurring revenue, which the investor community typically favors. Recurring revenue generally comes in the form of fixed annual or monthly subscription licenses.

However, eDiscovery software providers are increasingly aligning their SaaS pricing strategy with the amount of product usage their customers consume. Instead of paying a fixed rate, the pricing is based upon actual usage. The benefits of this approach include a shorter and simpler purchasing process and increased customer satisfaction and retention.

In the eDiscovery space, customers often prefer to pay by “matter”, i.e., per lawsuit or legal case. Law firms and service providers typically utilize eDiscovery SaaS software specific to an individual case on a pass-through cost basis, where their end-client ultimately pays for the services. In the case of corporate law departments, oftentimes the organization prefers to purchase annual subscriptions for eDiscovery and apply the license over multiple matters in the course of the year. However, such buying decisions vary by organization, with corporate counsel sometimes deferring eDiscovery workflow and tech decisions to their law firms, which favors a usage-based pricing model.

While tech companies with recurring annual term revenue will typically garner higher valuations, eDiscovery software firms with usage-based pricing models are now seeing similarly elevated valuations. Investors are recognizing the very unique economics and buying dynamics specific to the eDiscovery software space. But it is incumbent on eDiscovery software execs, their investment bankers, and board members to educate the broader market on this dynamic unique to the eDiscovery space. In some situations, investors new to this space attempt to apply a steep discount to usage-based SaaS revenue, as it doesn’t fit in with their “paint by the numbers” ARR models. Rick Weber, Managing Director of Legal Tech investment banking firm Arbor Ridge Partners notes, “while the usage model is not annual recurring, it is ‘monthly re-occurring,’ and thus projections and modeling can be made based on company history and industry norms and should be treated like ARR contracts.”

In fact, usage-based pricing is now gaining wider acceptance in the broader SaaS software market beyond legal tech. Cloud infrastructure providers AWS and Microsoft Azure are obvious examples of successful usage-based pricing strategies, but many startups and medium sized companies have successfully implemented the model as well. While usage-based revenue may seem less predictable compared to other pricing models, companies using this model are often growing faster, retaining more revenue, and valued at high revenue multiples. But again, this realization requires a closer look by investors and an intelligent education effort by the companies and their advisors.

One caveat for investors is to confirm that the value of the SaaS usage offering is mostly based upon proprietary software tech versus services that are dressed up as SaaS. Some eDiscovery service providers attempt to position their services as SaaS, without a true standalone propriety software component. An analysis of the cost of sales/gross margins and assessment of the actual proprietary nature of the software is determinative. Gross margins should be at least 80 percent. And while some services are often provided in conjunction with a SaaS usage-based offering, a qualifying factor is whether the software is also separately offered purely as a traditional license to end users without any services required, which is how many customers will opt to buy.

But for true usage-based SaaS offerings, the flexibility, simplicity and supporting of legal customers purchasing dynamics are key to rapid growth and customer satisfaction. As summarized by Weber, “many of the PE firms and investors that have made big bets on such companies in recent years seem to understand the nuance and opportunity while many still lag behind and simply need to think outside of their box.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Best Practices, Cloud Data, Corporations, eDiscovery, Enterprise eDiscovery, Information Management, SaaS, Uncategorized

Relativity Product Team Highlights Compelling X1 Integration for ESI Collection

By John Patzakis

Recently we hosted a webinar with Relativity highlighting the very compelling integration of our X1 Distributed Discovery platform with the RelativityOne Collect solution. This X1/Relativity integration enables game-changing efficiencies in the eDiscovery process by accelerating speed to review, and providing an end-to-end process from identification through production.  As stated by Relativity Chief Product Officer Chris Brown: “Our exciting new partnership with X1 highlights our continued commitment to providing a streamlined user experience from collection to production…RelativityOne users will be able to combine X1’s innovative endpoint technology with the performance of our SaaS platform, eliminating the cumbersome process of manual data hand-offs and allowing them to get to the pertinent data in their case – faster.”

blog-relativity-collect-v3

The webinar featured a live demonstration showing X1 quickly collecting data across multiple custodians and seamlessly importing that data into RelativityOne in less than two minutes. Relativity Collect currently supports Office 365 and Slack sources, and this X1 integration will now enable Relativity Collect to also reach emails and files on laptops and file servers. Relativity Senior Product Manager Barry O’Melia commented that the integration with X1 will “greatly streamline eDiscovery process by collapsing the many hand-offs built into current EDRM workflows to provide greater speed and defensibility.”

ComplianceDS President Marc Zamsky, a customer of both X1 and Relativity, recently commented that the “ability to collect directly from custodian laptops and desktops into a RelativityOne workspace without impacting custodians is a game-changer,” which will “reduce collection times from weeks to hours so that attorneys can quickly begin reviewing and analyzing ESI in RelativityOne.”

The live demonstration performed by O’Melia highlighted in real time how the integration improves the enterprise eDiscovery collection and ECA process by enabling a targeted and efficient search and collection process, with immediate pre-collection visibility into custodial data. X1 Distributed Discovery enhances the eDiscovery workflow with integrated culling and deduplication, thereby eliminating the need for expensive and cumbersome electronically stored information (ESI) processing tools. That way, the ESI can be populated straight into Relativity from an X1 collection.

The X1 and Relativity integration addresses several pain points in the existing eDiscovery process. For one, there is currently an inability to quickly search across and access distributed unstructured data in-place, meaning eDiscovery teams have to spend weeks or even months to collect data as required by other cumbersome solutions. Additionally, using ESI processing methods that involve appliances that are not integrated with the collection will significantly increase cost and time delays.

So in terms of the big picture, with this integration providing a complete platform for efficient data search, eDiscovery and review across the enterprise, organizations will save a lot of time, save a lot of money, and be able to make faster and better decisions. When you accelerate the speed to review and eliminate over-collection, you are going to have much better early insight into your data and increase efficiencies on many levels.

A recording of the X1/Relativity integration webinar can be accessed here.

With the ability to search and collect emails and documents across up to thousands of endpoints and network sources with industry-leading speed, X1 Distributed Discovery revolutionizes enterprise eDiscovery. For example, X1 empowers legal and consulting teams to iterate their search parameters in real time before collection, providing a revolutionary true pre-collection early case assessment capability. Additionally, with its intelligent collection capability, X1 performs instantaneous data processing (culling, de-duplication, text and metadata extraction, etc) in a fully automated manner.

And with the integration with Relativity, the X1 platform is even more compelling. As Marc Zamsky exclaimed “My clients are going to love this!”

Leave a comment

Filed under collection, eDiscovery, Preservation & Collection, SaaS, Uncategorized