Case IQ (formerly i-Sight) is one of the most established investigation case-management platforms, and if you've searched this category you've read their content — they publish a lot of it, and much of it is good. This page compares what their product and ours are each built for, based on public materials as of July 2026. If we've got something wrong, email us; we'd rather correct the page than win an argument with a straw man.
What Case IQ is best at
Case IQ is case management with unusual flexibility: configurable workflows, custom case types, intake from hotlines and web forms, automated routing and approvals, and strong reporting across a distributed caseload. Their AI assistant, Clairia, supports triage and investigation workflow — suggesting next steps, summarizing, helping teams move cases along. If your organization handles a spike-prone, multi-type caseload (HR, ethics, fraud, security) and needs one configurable system of record from intake through resolution, Case IQ is a credible, mature choice.
What Inqura is best at
Inqura doesn't manage your caseload — it does the analytical core of a single investigation, the part that determines whether your finding survives challenge. Evidence goes in; structured questions frame the inquiry; the AI drafts analysis where every claim cites the specific evidence supporting it, evaluated against criteria drawn from professional standards (CIGIE, GAO, IIA, ACFE). Findings carry evidence-computed confidence levels — and when the evidence is too weak or conflicting, the answer is "Insufficient," not a fluent guess.
The structural difference is what happens at review. Inqura's analysis is scored for faithfulness to your evidence before you see it, and the sign-off is gated: you can't agree with a finding until you've opened the cited evidence, and your judgment is recorded and timestamped as a workpaper artifact. AI assistance in most tools accelerates the work; ours also documents that a human verified it — because in our world, "did anyone actually check this?" is the question that eventually gets asked.
The decision in one table
| Your situation | Better fit |
|---|---|
| Multi-type caseload (HR/ethics/fraud/security), need configurable intake→resolution workflow | Case IQ |
| Distributed team, automated routing, program-level reporting | Case IQ |
| Document-heavy single investigations where the finding must be defensible | Inqura |
| Fraud examination or forensic engagement built on evidence tracing | Inqura |
| Need a recorded, gated human-review step on AI-assisted analysis | Inqura |
| Volume problem and defensibility problem | Both — they complement rather than compete. |
Three questions to ask either vendor (including us)
- Show me the sign-off moment on an AI-assisted analysis — what exactly does the system record?
- Trace one claim in a finished finding back to its source evidence. How many clicks?
- What does the AI output when the evidence doesn't support a conclusion?
Free 14-day trial at inqura.ai, no sales call attached — or watch the two-minute walkthrough on a real case first.