Side by side
C-Track vs DAWSON
Both stand on court management. Which one you can start free with, which one lets you read the code, and what each costs once you pay.
Paid Web
Courts seeking configurable workflow management, resource scheduling, and remote access to case records should consider C-Track. Its range of court sizes and optional solutions support different court needs. Buyers should look elsewhere if they need a published price, since pricing is provided on request and varies by court community and implementation.
Visit C-Track Free plan AndroidiPhoneWeb
Visit DAWSON The facts
| C-Track | DAWSON | |
|---|---|---|
| Free plan | Not published | Yes |
| Open source | Not published | Not published |
| Runs on | Web | Android, iPhone, Web |
| Lowest paid plan | Free or on request | Not published |
| Plans published | 1 | None |
| Maker | Not published | Not published |
| Website | legal.thomsonreuters.com | dawson.ustaxcourt.gov |
| On court management | #7 of 16 | #3 of 16 |
C-Track: what it does well
- Court staff can change rules without technical support.
- The rules engine automates actions using court-provided data.
- Scheduling covers courtrooms, judges, and other resources.
- Confidentiality markings restrict sensitive case information to authorized viewers.
- Public access supports searches by case number, attorney, or party.
What to know first
- Pricing is available on request.
- Pricing includes license, implementation, and annual maintenance and support fees.
DAWSON: what it does well
Alternatives to C-Track Alternatives to DAWSON The whole list