Explore
Navisa InsightsCareers by occupationProgram requirementsPractice guidesCompare NavisaPolicy trackerClio alternative
A Clio alternative built only for Canadian immigration
Clio is a large, well-resourced legal practice-management platform used across every practice area, with a dedicated immigration-law-software page and a paid AI add-on (Clio Duo) scoped to admin work. Firms usually start looking for an alternative for one of two reasons, both traceable to Clio’s own public materials: it does not natively fill Canadian IRCC forms (that comes through a third-party integration like Docketwise), and it licenses per user per month, so a growing team pays more regardless of case volume.
Navisa is not a horizontal platform with immigration as one of many practice types — it is a file-prep engine built only for Canadian immigration. Its AI reads the documents on a file, cross-checks them against each other, runs a cited eligibility analysis against the actual regulation, and fills the official IRCC forms directly, with the source quote behind every AI-filled value. Pricing is flat plus per-case, not per seat.
Where Navisa covers what Clio leaves to an integration or doesn’t claim
Drawn from the same verified 2026-07-21 Clio dossier as the direct Navisa vs Clio comparison. Where Clio does not publish a capability, this says so rather than guessing.
Cited eligibility analysis
Clio Duo is scoped to admin and paperwork — summarizing documents, drafting communications, timekeeping. No claim found of it running a legal-eligibility analysis or citing IRPR sections or IRCC guidance. Navisa’s analysis reads every document on a file and cites the IRPR section or IRCC guidance behind each finding.
Native IRCC form-filling
Clio’s own immigration-law-software page and independent sources describe IRCC-form automation as something added through a third-party integration (for example Docketwise), not a native Clio capability. Navisa fills the official IRCC XFA forms directly from the documents it read.
Pricing that scales with case volume, not headcount
Clio licenses per user, per month, across four published tiers — a firm of five consultants pays five times the per-seat fee before a single case is opened. Navisa charges one flat monthly base (CA$75) plus a per-case fee (CA$29), with unlimited seats.
Who should switch, and who shouldn’t
| Good fit for switching | A firm or solo RCIC that practices only immigration, wants a cited eligibility analysis and native IRCC form-filling without a third-party integration, and would rather pay per case than per seat as the team grows. |
| Better off staying on Clio | A firm that practices across multiple areas of law and needs one platform for billing, trust accounting and matter management across all of them — Clio’s breadth is a real strength there that a single-purpose immigration tool does not try to replace. |
Migration path
Navisa is built for immigration only, so a migration is scoped to immigration matters, not your whole practice. Existing client facts and documents are entered as you open each case in Navisa; the trial includes one case free, with no card required, so you can run a real file through it before deciding whether to bring more cases across.
Information about Clio is based on their publicly available materials as of 2026-07-21, the same dossier behind the direct Navisa vs Clio comparison; if anything here is inaccurate, contact us and we’ll correct it.
Try it on a real file before you decide
The trial is free, with one case included and no card required — the fastest way to see whether the cited analysis and native IRCC forms fit your practice.