GITNUXSOFTWARE ADVICE
Legal Professional ServicesTop 10 Best Litigation Project Management Software of 2026
Top 10 Litigation Project Management Software ranked for legal teams, with comparisons of Clio, CosmoLex, Actionstep, and key feature tradeoffs.
How we ranked these tools
Core product claims cross-referenced against official documentation, changelogs, and independent technical reviews.
Analyzed video reviews and hundreds of written evaluations to capture real-world user experiences with each tool.
AI persona simulations modeled how different user types would experience each tool across common use cases and workflows.
Final rankings reviewed and approved by our editorial team with authority to override AI-generated scores based on domain expertise.
Score: Features 40% · Ease 30% · Value 30%
Gitnux may earn a commission through links on this page — this does not influence rankings. Editorial policy
Editor’s top 3 picks
Three quick recommendations before you dive into the full comparison below — each one leads on a different dimension.
Clio
Matter management workflow automation tied to matter status and events via the Clio API.
Built for fits when mid-size litigation teams need matter-linked automation with an auditable, RBAC-controlled model..
CosmoLex
Editor pickMatter record governance that ties workflow updates and money events to a consistent legal schema.
Built for fits when litigation teams need governed automation tied to a consistent matter schema and integration via API..
Actionstep
Editor pickConfigurable workflow rules that trigger task creation and routing from matter and case field transitions.
Built for fits when mid-size litigation teams need schema-driven automation with governance controls..
Related reading
- Legal Professional ServicesTop 10 Best Litigation Management Software of 2026
- Legal Professional ServicesTop 10 Best Law Firm Project Management Software of 2026
- Legal Professional ServicesTop 10 Best Litigation Support Software of 2026
- Legal Professional ServicesTop 10 Best Digital Litigation Services of 2026
Comparison Table
This comparison table maps litigation project management platforms across integration depth, automation and API surface, and the underlying data model and schema design. Rows also cover admin and governance controls such as RBAC, provisioning options, and audit log coverage so tradeoffs are visible during evaluation. The included tools span legal case workflows and document systems, with entries reflecting how extensibility and configuration affect throughput and operational governance.
Clio
legal practice suiteLegal practice management software that includes matter workflows, tasks, time tracking, documents, and client communication for managing litigation work end to end.
Matter management workflow automation tied to matter status and events via the Clio API.
Clio structures litigation work around a matter data model that links contacts, matters, tasks, documents, and time entries to a single case context. Automation uses configurable workflows that trigger actions when users update matter fields, status, or events, which keeps task creation and document steps synchronized. Integration options include a set of APIs and connectors that move data between Clio and external systems while preserving matter associations and identifiers.
A common tradeoff is that deeper custom automation and cross-system logic often requires building on the API rather than relying only on native workflow configuration. Clio fits situations where teams need consistent schema mappings across intake, deadlines, and document workflows, plus controlled access via RBAC for lawyers, staff, and admins.
Admin and governance controls focus on provisioning and access management, with audit-oriented activity logging that ties changes to users and matters. That model supports extensibility when organizations need predictable throughput across high-volume case handling while keeping change history reviewable.
- +Matter-first data model links tasks, documents, and deadlines to a case context
- +Configurable automation triggers keep workflow steps aligned with matter status
- +Documented API supports integration breadth with practice systems
- +RBAC and admin provisioning control access by role across matters
- +Activity tracking ties changes to users and case objects
- –Complex bespoke workflows usually require API-based extension
- –Workflow customization can be limited by native trigger and schema boundaries
Best for: Fits when mid-size litigation teams need matter-linked automation with an auditable, RBAC-controlled model.
More related reading
CosmoLex
legal case managementLitigation-focused legal case management with built-in compliance accounting, which ties matter activity to billing, trust accounting, and reporting.
Matter record governance that ties workflow updates and money events to a consistent legal schema.
CosmoLex targets litigation teams that need a case-first schema where matters, events, deadlines, and money movements share consistent identifiers across workflows. The system’s record model supports structured capture of tasks and filings while keeping time entries and billing artifacts attached to the correct matter. Automation rules can update workflow states and generate predictable downstream artifacts, which supports repeatable throughput for recurring case stages.
A key tradeoff is that deep governance and structured schema make cross-case custom reporting harder when requirements do not match the built-in data model. CosmoLex fits scenarios where teams run standardized litigation processes and need controlled document, deadline, and billing linkage with integration-ready data.
- +Case-first data model keeps deadlines, filings, and billing linked to a single matter record
- +Workflow automation updates case status and task routing using configurable rules
- +Integration oriented API supports custom data flows and system-to-system synchronization
- +Admin controls include role-based access patterns and case activity audit visibility
- +Consistent identifiers improve reporting integrity across matter lifecycle changes
- –Schema rigidity can limit ad hoc fields and cross-case reporting patterns
- –Complex integrations require careful mapping between internal matter entities and external systems
Best for: Fits when litigation teams need governed automation tied to a consistent matter schema and integration via API.
Actionstep
workflow-drivenCloud legal practice management with customizable workflows for matters, tasks, document management, and billing for law firms running litigation portfolios.
Configurable workflow rules that trigger task creation and routing from matter and case field transitions.
Actionstep’s data model treats a matter as a structured container for parties, matters, deadlines, tasks, and work outputs, so litigation workflows can map to fields and schemas instead of free-form tracking. Automation runs through configurable workflow rules that can create tasks, set due dates, and route items based on field changes and status transitions. The integration approach emphasizes an API surface for pushing and pulling matter data, syncing external systems, and building custom events that feed internal work queues.
A concrete tradeoff appears in configuration overhead, because deep schema modeling and workflow rules require careful governance to avoid conflicting status transitions and duplicate automation. Actionstep fits best when a litigation team needs consistent intake to case setup, automated assignment on milestones, and repeatable workflows across multiple practices with shared reporting needs.
- +Matter-centric schema supports structured litigation tracking and reporting
- +Configurable workflow automation can generate tasks and due dates from field changes
- +API and extensibility enable external case intake, syncing, and custom events
- +RBAC and audit log visibility tie access and changes to specific records and users
- –Deep workflow configuration can increase admin effort and change-management load
- –Complex status routing requires careful rule ordering to avoid duplicate actions
- –Some advanced integrations may need custom development around the API surface
Best for: Fits when mid-size litigation teams need schema-driven automation with governance controls.
NetDocuments
document and matter workspaceDocument management system with litigation-ready matter structure, permissions, and retention controls that support litigation project tracking via integrated matter workspaces.
Audit log and RBAC tied to matter records with API-driven metadata operations.
NetDocuments combines litigation document and matter records with a configurable data model built around legal work. Its integration depth relies on documented APIs for provisioning, metadata operations, and workflow-related actions across the matter lifecycle.
Automation and extensibility are driven through schema configuration plus API-accessible controls that support consistent governance across matters. RBAC, audit logging, and retention-aligned administration help teams manage throughput and compliance boundaries at scale.
- +API-accessible metadata and document operations support consistent matter schema
- +RBAC and audit log visibility cover access changes and file events
- +Matter-centric configuration keeps governance aligned across workflows
- +Administration controls support repeatable provisioning at scale
- +Extensibility via automation hooks reduces manual data reentry
- –Workflow automation requires careful data model mapping per matter
- –Complex integrations need developer time for schema and permissions alignment
- –Advanced automation often depends on external orchestration and state
Best for: Fits when litigation teams need governed matter data, APIs, and repeatable automation.
iManage
enterprise content managementEnterprise document and knowledge management used in legal environments to organize matter content, manage permissions, and support litigation collaboration workflows.
Matter-based permissioning and audit logging tied to iManage document and workflow objects.
iManage coordinates litigation matter work by linking legal workflows to its document and records data model. It supports matter-centric governance with configurable permissions, audit logging, and retention oriented controls that admin teams can enforce.
The integration depth depends on iManage APIs and connectors for document, workflow, and user directory synchronization, so automation can span content, tasks, and metadata. Extensibility relies on a defined schema and integration surface that determines what can be provisioned, automated, and validated at scale.
- +Matter-centric data model ties documents, metadata, and workflow artifacts together
- +Granular RBAC supports user, role, and permission enforcement per matter
- +Audit log records access and actions for governance and defensibility
- +Integration surface supports connectors for content systems and identity alignment
- –Automation depth depends on available API coverage for specific workflow objects
- –Data model rigidity can limit custom schemas for niche litigation artifacts
- –Admin configuration and governance setup require careful schema and permission design
Best for: Fits when litigation teams need governed matter workflows with strong auditability and controlled integrations.
Asana
work managementWork management that supports litigation project pipelines using tasks, subtasks, due dates, timelines, and custom fields for case tracking.
Asana API plus webhooks enable event-driven synchronization of tasks and custom fields.
Asana fits legal teams that need litigation work tracking with structured tasks, deadlines, and cross-matter visibility. The data model supports custom fields, approvals, and portfolio-style rollups that map to evidence, discovery, and motion workflows.
Automation runs through rules, templates, and linked work, with extensibility through the Asana API and webhooks. Governance relies on Organization admin controls, role-based access, and audit logging for changes to key objects.
- +Custom fields model case attributes like matter type, court, and privilege tags
- +Approvals support controlled routing for filings, redlines, and evidence releases
- +Rules automate status transitions and due dates from task field changes
- +API and webhooks support event-driven integrations with legal systems
- –Complex litigation data often needs careful schema design across multiple objects
- –Automation rules can become hard to reason about at scale without naming conventions
- –Cross-system consistency requires custom integration logic for normalization
- –Some governance scenarios depend on correct workspace setup and permissions
Best for: Fits when litigation teams need governed workflow automation with an API-driven integration surface.
monday.com
configurable workflowWork operating system that manages litigation workflows with configurable boards, automations, dashboards, and permissioned collaboration per matter.
Board column types plus rule-based automations tied to specific field values and item events.
monday.com uses a configurable work data model that can be mapped to legal task, matter, and workflow fields without custom database work. The automation layer supports rule-based triggers tied to specific column values, status changes, and user actions, with enough configurability to model litigation workflows.
The integration surface includes published connectors and an API that supports reading and writing board data, enabling matter-level sync and custom tooling. Admin and governance controls center on workspace roles, permission scopes, and change auditing to keep access and edits trackable across teams.
- +Board data model supports custom fields for pleadings, deadlines, and matter metadata
- +Automation rules trigger on column changes, statuses, and assignments for repeatable workflows
- +API supports programmatic read and write of board items for integration and tooling
- +Role-based permissions restrict access across workspaces and boards
- –Deep data normalization needs careful schema design across related boards
- –Automation complexity can require extensive configuration to match litigation edge cases
- –Cross-board governance depends on consistent naming, permissions, and automation patterns
- –Audit visibility focuses on item edits, not detailed document-level provenance
Best for: Fits when litigation teams need configurable workflow automation and controlled access across matters.
Atlassian Jira
issue workflowIssue and workflow tracker configured for litigation project plans using boards, custom fields, sprints, release-style timelines, and audit history.
Jira Automation rule engine with REST API and webhook triggers for matter workflow events.
Jira focuses on a configurable issue data model that supports litigation workflows through custom fields, issue types, and permission-driven access. Integration depth is driven by marketplace apps and Atlassian native features like Jira Automation, Jira REST APIs, and webhooks for system-to-system state changes.
The automation and API surface supports schema-aware workflow steps, SLA handling, and cross-system synchronization for matter, task, and evidence tracking. Admin and governance controls include granular project and issue-level permissions, global RBAC via Atlassian access, and audit logging for change visibility.
- +Configurable issue schema with custom fields, issue types, and workflow statuses
- +Strong integration via Jira REST APIs and webhooks for external case systems
- +Workflow automation covers triggers, conditions, and actions without custom code
- +Granular project permissions with consistent RBAC enforcement
- –Litigation reporting often needs configuration work or marketplace add-ons
- –Automation complexity increases with cross-project rules and many issue types
- –Cross-matter governance can require careful permission design and naming conventions
- –High-volume throughput can require tuning indexing and automation rule scope
Best for: Fits when litigation operations need configurable issue schema plus API-driven workflow orchestration.
Atlassian Confluence
legal documentation wikiTeam wiki for litigation project documentation using structured pages, templates, permissions, and integrations that pair with Jira for case tracking.
Space and page-level permissions with audit log visibility for governed litigation documentation.
Confluence hosts litigation project documentation in a governed knowledge space with page-level permissions and structured templates for casework workflows. The product integrates deeply with Atlassian apps like Jira, including bidirectional linking and issue-to-page context so teams can trace filings, timelines, and decisions.
Its automation surface includes rules for content events plus a REST API for data access, schema-like content structures, and integration through app connectors. Admin and governance controls cover RBAC, space provisioning, and audit log visibility to support compliance-oriented review trails.
- +Space and page permissions support RBAC across matters and internal workstreams
- +Jira issue integration links case artifacts to tickets and status updates
- +REST API enables programmatic page, attachment, and content traversal
- +Automation rules react to page creation, updates, and workflow handoffs
- +Audit log provides administrator visibility into key content and permission changes
- –Out-of-the-box task states and timelines need Jira for true workflow depth
- –Automation complexity increases as multi-space governance and branching grow
- –Structured data relies on content conventions, not a strict litigation schema
- –Permission models can be hard to debug across nested spaces and inherited access
Best for: Fits when litigation teams need governed case documentation tied to Jira workflows and API-driven integrations.
Microsoft Project
schedule planningProject scheduling for litigation timelines with critical path planning, dependencies, resource views, and progress tracking for milestones.
Baseline comparisons to quantify schedule drift between planned and current case timelines.
Microsoft Project fits litigation teams that need schedule control with tight handoffs to portfolio reporting, case timelines, and resource planning. Its core data model centers on tasks, dependencies, baselines, resources, and work calendars, which supports audit-ready change tracking via baseline comparisons.
Integration depth is strongest when paired with Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Graph-linked workflows, because permissions, identity, and document storage align across Microsoft services. Automation and extensibility rely on a published scheduling data structure and the broader Microsoft API and integration surface for provisioning, RBAC enforcement, and workflow execution.
- +Task dependency and baseline support for evidentiary timeline comparisons
- +Resource and work calendar modeling for staffing across case phases
- +Tight Microsoft 365 and identity alignment for consistent access control
- +Automation via Microsoft workflow tooling and API-enabled integrations
- –Litigation-specific matter templates require manual configuration
- –Automation requires external workflow design for document-linked milestones
- –Schema customization is limited versus tools built for case data
- –Cross-case reporting needs careful export or integration planning
Best for: Fits when litigation schedules need dependency rigor and Microsoft-driven workflow automation.
How to Choose the Right Litigation Project Management Software
This buyer's guide covers the practical evaluation criteria behind litigation project management tools built around matter workflows, tasks, and document context. It references Clio, CosmoLex, Actionstep, NetDocuments, iManage, Asana, monday.com, Jira, Confluence, and Microsoft Project.
The guide focuses on integration depth, data model fit, automation and API surface, and admin governance controls. It also maps common implementation mistakes to specific tools and concrete alternatives.
Matter-first workflow and evidence tracking systems for litigation execution
Litigation project management software coordinates case activities by linking deadlines, filings, evidence, tasks, and document work to a litigation matter record or an issue workflow. These systems reduce handoff failures by controlling status transitions and routing work when matter or issue fields change.
Teams use them for end-to-end coordination from intake through closure, or for tightly structured portfolio execution across many cases. Clio and Actionstep illustrate the matter-centered approach with workflow automation tied to matter status and configurable workflow rules that can generate tasks and due dates from field changes.
Integration, data modeling, automation surface, and governance you can administer
Litigation execution fails when systems cannot keep a consistent case schema across users, matters, and integrations. Integration depth matters because document operations, metadata updates, and event triggers must align with the tool’s underlying data model.
Automation and API surface determine whether integrations can provision objects, sync state changes, and maintain audit evidence. Admin and governance controls determine whether RBAC, audit logs, and repeatable provisioning keep access and change visibility controlled across the matter lifecycle.
Matter-linked data model with schema constraints
Clio ties tasks, documents, and deadlines to a case context so workflow logic and reporting share the same matter anchor. CosmoLex uses a tightly defined legal matter schema that links money events and workflow updates to one governed record.
Workflow automation triggered by matter status or field transitions
Clio’s automation ties workflow steps to matter status events via the Clio API. Actionstep and monday.com both use rule engines that generate tasks and due dates when configured fields or status values change.
Document and metadata integration operations with an API surface
NetDocuments supports API-driven metadata and document operations that help keep a consistent matter structure across ingestion and workflow steps. iManage provides API access through connectors for document and workflow objects so integrations can align permissions and content operations.
Event-driven extensibility using API plus webhooks
Asana supports the Asana API plus webhooks for event-driven synchronization of tasks and custom fields. Jira provides automation with REST APIs and webhook triggers so external case systems can react to workflow events.
RBAC, audit log visibility, and admin provisioning controls
Clio includes RBAC-controlled access with activity tracking that ties changes to users and case objects. NetDocuments combines RBAC and audit log visibility tied to matter records with repeatable provisioning controls for scale.
Governed documentation spaces tied to workflow context
Confluence offers space and page permissions plus an audit log for administrator visibility into permission and content changes. It pairs with Jira by linking Jira issues to documentation so filings, timelines, and decisions stay traceable.
A selection sequence for matching litigation workflow automation and governance
Start with the data model anchor for litigation work because it dictates how tasks, documents, and status changes stay consistent. Then verify that the tool’s automation triggers and API surface can enforce that model across systems.
Finally, confirm admin governance controls for RBAC, audit logs, and provisioning so multi-user access and change history stay defensible during litigation activity cycles.
Pick the system of record type that matches case workflows
If matter status is the primary driver, Clio and CosmoLex fit because both center a matter record that workflow automation can reference. If structured workflow execution is needed across many tasks without a litigation schema, Asana can work via custom fields and approvals.
Map the automation triggers to your real status and field transitions
Use Clio when matter status events should drive tasks and workflow steps through the Clio API. Use Actionstep when due dates and task generation must follow configurable workflow rules from matter and case field transitions.
Validate the integration depth needed for documents, metadata, and sync
Use NetDocuments when the workflow requires API-driven metadata and document operations tied to a matter structure. Use iManage when content and workflow permissions must be enforced through matter-based permissioning and audit logging on document and workflow objects.
Test extensibility with the exact automation and event mechanisms required
Use Jira when system-to-system workflow orchestration requires Jira REST APIs and webhook triggers backed by Jira Automation rule logic. Use Asana when event-driven task and custom-field synchronization depends on Asana API plus webhooks.
Stress governance controls for access control and audit trails
Choose Clio or NetDocuments when RBAC and audit activity tied to users and case objects must support defensible change history. Choose Confluence for governed litigation documentation where space and page permissions plus an audit log are required for compliance-oriented review trails.
Which litigation teams benefit from specific automation and governance models
Different litigation operations prioritize different anchors such as matter status, issue workflows, document governance, or scheduling baselines. The right tool depends on how the team wants status transitions, data consistency, and audit visibility enforced.
The segments below map directly to the best-fit descriptions provided for each tool in the ranked set.
Mid-size litigation teams that need matter-linked automation with auditable RBAC
Clio fits because it records matter-centered data and ties workflow automation to matter status and events via the Clio API, while RBAC and activity tracking connect changes to users and case objects. Actionstep fits when schema-driven workflow rules must generate tasks and route work from matter and case field transitions with RBAC and audit log visibility tied to records and users.
Litigation teams that require governed case schemas that link workflow to money events
CosmoLex fits because a consistent legal matter schema ties workflow updates and money events to one governed matter record. CosmoLex also supports integration-oriented API flows that support custom data routing and synchronization.
Litigation teams that treat documents as governed matter workspaces that must stay permissioned
NetDocuments fits when RBAC and audit logs must be tied to matter records and when API-driven metadata operations are required. iManage fits when matter-based permissioning and audit logging must be enforced across document and workflow objects with controlled integrations.
Teams that need configurable workflow orchestration with API-first event handling
Jira fits when configurable issue schemas, Jira Automation, and REST APIs with webhook triggers must orchestrate matter workflow events. Asana fits when event-driven synchronization of tasks and custom fields depends on Asana API plus webhooks.
Teams running litigation documentation workflows tied to issue tracking
Confluence fits when page-level permissions and an audit log must support governed litigation documentation. Confluence fits best when documentation must be tightly connected to Jira issues so case artifacts remain traceable.
Pitfalls that create weak governance or broken integrations during litigation execution
Litigation implementations fail when workflow logic cannot translate into the tool’s data model or when automation rules are configured without governance clarity. These pitfalls show up repeatedly across tools that depend on configurable schemas, rules engines, or external orchestration.
The corrective actions below reference specific capabilities and constraints called out in the tool summaries.
Building bespoke workflows that exceed the native trigger and schema boundaries
Clio workflow customization can be limited by native trigger and schema boundaries, so complex bespoke workflows usually require API-based extension rather than only native configuration. Actionstep can also increase admin effort when deep workflow configuration raises change-management load, so automation scope should map to field transitions that the workflow engine can manage.
Treating schema rigidity as interchangeable with ad hoc litigation metadata
CosmoLex’s schema rigidity can limit ad hoc fields and cross-case reporting patterns, so teams should model expected reporting dimensions up front. NetDocuments and iManage both require careful schema and permissions mapping per matter when automation and integrations must preserve consistent metadata across workspaces.
Overloading automation rules without a naming and governance plan
Asana rule logic can become hard to reason about at scale without naming conventions, so conventions must cover custom fields and approvals tied to case attributes. monday.com automation complexity can require extensive configuration for litigation edge cases, so column types and rule triggers should be standardized across boards.
Assuming cross-system governance includes document-level provenance by default
monday.com audit visibility focuses on item edits, not detailed document-level provenance, so document governance must come from the content layer. Confluence provides audit log visibility for content and permission changes, while NetDocuments and iManage tie audit and access to matter records and document workflow objects.
Skipping permission and provisioning design when integrations must sync state at scale
NetDocuments and iManage both require careful alignment of schema, permissions, and integration logic for complex integrations, so provisioning needs a repeatable mapping plan. iManage automation depth can depend on available API coverage for specific workflow objects, so integrations should validate the specific objects needed for litigation collaboration workflows.
How We Selected and Ranked These Tools
We evaluated Clio, CosmoLex, Actionstep, NetDocuments, iManage, Asana, monday.com, Jira, Confluence, and Microsoft Project using criteria grounded in the stated feature capabilities, ease-of-use characteristics, and value signals for litigation execution workflows. Features carry the most weight at forty percent, while ease of use and value each account for thirty percent in the overall score. This editorial ranking reflects criteria-based scoring from the provided tool summaries and does not depend on hands-on lab testing or private benchmark experiments.
Clio separated from lower-ranked tools because it ties matter workflow automation to matter status and events through a documented Clio API, while RBAC and activity tracking connect changes to users and case objects. That combination lifted it on both feature fit for litigation automation and practical governance control needed during multi-user matter lifecycle activity.
Frequently Asked Questions About Litigation Project Management Software
How do these tools handle integrations for matter workflows and document activity?
What integration pattern works best when systems must react to record changes, not just sync data?
Which tools provide strong SSO and security controls with admin-visible audit trails?
How does data migration usually work when moving matter records, deadlines, and metadata into a new system?
What admin controls exist for permissions and change visibility across users and record objects?
Which platform is best when the organization needs extensibility via a documented API plus configuration-based schemas?
How do teams choose between matter-centric legal systems and issue or task trackers for litigation projects?
What common setup failures occur when workflow automation depends on the data model?
How do documentation workflows connect to case timelines and task execution in these tools?
Conclusion
After evaluating 10 legal professional services, Clio stands out as our overall top pick — it scored highest across our combined criteria of features, ease of use, and value, which is why it sits at #1 in the rankings above.
Use the comparison table and detailed reviews above to validate the fit against your own requirements before committing to a tool.
Tools reviewed
Primary sources checked during evaluation.
Referenced in the comparison table and product reviews above.
Keep exploring
Comparing two specific tools?
Software Alternatives
See head-to-head software comparisons with feature breakdowns, pricing, and our recommendation for each use case.
Explore software alternatives→In this category
Legal Professional Services alternatives
See side-by-side comparisons of legal professional services tools and pick the right one for your stack.
Compare legal professional services tools→FOR SOFTWARE VENDORS
Not on this list? Let’s fix that.
Our best-of pages are how many teams discover and compare tools in this space. If you think your product belongs in this lineup, we’d like to hear from you—we’ll walk you through fit and what an editorial entry looks like.
Apply for a ListingWHAT THIS INCLUDES
Where buyers compare
Readers come to these pages to shortlist software—your product shows up in that moment, not in a random sidebar.
Editorial write-up
We describe your product in our own words and check the facts before anything goes live.
On-page brand presence
You appear in the roundup the same way as other tools we cover: name, positioning, and a clear next step for readers who want to learn more.
Kept up to date
We refresh lists on a regular rhythm so the category page stays useful as products and pricing change.