Compare
A strong engine. The pipeline around the engine is the part that decides delivery.
Translation quality is what this category competes on, and it is genuinely good. Our argument is not about sentence quality — it is about everything between receiving a file and delivering one.
What it is good at
Translation quality is the strength of this category. If the question is whether a sentence reads well, engines of this kind do that well.
Document handling exists in some form. Some engines in this category offer document translation for common formats, which is a real capability and worth checking against your file types.
It is a general-purpose engine rather than an agency pipeline. Nothing about it is designed around the workflow an agency actually runs.
Where the document itself is left to you
These are the gaps our pipeline exists to fill. They are about the file, not about the tool.
The awkward documents are the ones that fail
A clean .docx is not the hard case. A half-scanned PDF, a catalogue laid out in a design tool, a slide deck with charts — those are where a general-purpose engine has no answer.
One treatment for the whole file
Real documents are mixed. A pipeline that decides per page — digital, scanned, image-heavy — handles that; a single pass does not.
Terminology is a word list, not a workflow
Enforcing 2000 project terms consistently is a different problem from preferring one word over another.
Nothing checks the output visually
A translated heading that no longer fits its box, a table that broke across a page — invisible to a text-level check, obvious to your client.
Repair means rerunning everything
When one region is wrong, the useful action is to reprocess that region. Rerunning the document risks changing the parts that were already correct.
Capability comparison
Categories, not vendors. We do not publish anyone's pricing, including our own.
| Row label | Us | Raw MT / cloud translation APIs | TMS platforms |
|---|---|---|---|
| Multilingual | Configured to your markets | A fixed list | A fixed list |
| Format preservation | Layout written back in place | Text or a rough file | Not an engine |
| Per-page processing plan | Each page routed on its own | One call, no quality control | Manual workflow |
| Multimodal input | Five source classes, five paths | Mostly text only | No |
| What you receive | Finished files | A block of translated text | Process management |
| Who owns the quality | Us | You | You |
How this sits next to an engine like DeepL
Not either-or. Many teams use both, for different jobs.
Engines of this kind are useful for interactive, ad-hoc text work — something a person pastes in and reads back. That is a real use case and we are not competing for it.
Our pipeline is for documents that have to come back finished: files with layout, batches with volume, formats that need per-page decisions.
Where a team uses both, the split is usually by content type rather than by preference — text here, documents there.
Questions
Is this a DeepL replacement?
Not in general. Engines of that kind are strong at translation quality and useful for ad-hoc text work. Our pipeline covers documents that have to come back finished, which is a different job.
Does DeepL not do documents?
Some engines in this category offer document translation for common formats — it is worth checking against your specific file types. What we cover is the wider set: mixed and scanned documents, per-page routing, region-level repair and independent visual checking.
What formats do you take that a general engine does not?
Scanned and image-only documents, mixed PDFs handled page by page, and layout-preserving write-back across Office formats. Native design files and markup formats we do not process.
How do we compare output quality?
Send the same document to both and read them. We are not going to publish a benchmark score, because a benchmark would not be your document.
Can we use you for just part of our work?
Yes. Most engagements start with one document type that is currently causing trouble, not with replacing everything.
Send us the document a general engine cannot handle.
That is a more useful comparison than any feature table — the awkward file is where the difference shows.
- No signup, no self-service portal — you send a file, we run it.
- You get the finished document back, not a screenshot of one.
- If it is not good enough, you have lost nothing.