Compare
Built for continuous content localisation. Documents are a different shape.
This category is genuinely good at what it was designed for: fast, automated, string-based localisation. Documents are simply a different problem.
What it is good at
Developer-first workflow is the point of this category. Keys, files, integrations, automation — content moves without a project manager in the loop.
Speed and iteration are real strengths. Continuous localisation assumes content changes constantly, and the tooling is built around that assumption.
It assumes content is text with a key. A document is a file with a layout, and that assumption is where documents fall out of the model.
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.
No concept of a page
Documents fail at page level — a table spanning a break, a scanned page in the middle of a digital file. String-based systems have no natural place to make that call.
Design files carry geometry
Text inside a designed frame has to fit that frame after translation. That is a typographic problem, not a string problem.
Image-only content has no keys
When the content exists as pixels, there is nothing to look up.
Delivery quality is unverified visually
Correct strings can produce a broken-looking document, and that failure is only visible in the rendered output.
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 We do not publish anyone's pricing, including our own.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 Lokalise
Two content types, two pipelines, one client.
Software and content localisation continue through the platform. Documents come through us. Both hand finished output back to the same delivery process.
Where a document originates in content the platform manages, that connection is scoped rather than assumed — tell us what your system can call.
An agency serving a software client usually needs both capabilities. They are not alternatives to each other.
Questions
Is this a Lokalise alternative?
For documents, it covers the part a continuous localisation platform is not built for. For software and content localisation, the platform is the right tool.
Do you do continuous localisation?
No. That model assumes content that changes constantly with keys attached. Documents are the opposite case — finished files with layout that have to come back intact.
Can our CMS content come through you?
No. Markup and interchange formats — HTML, XML, JSON, XLIFF, Markdown — are not supported. What we take is PDF, Office documents and images.
What about design files?
Native design files are not supported. A design exported to PDF or supplied as images can go through the pipeline.
How do we check the output?
Send a real document and judge the returned file. That is a more useful test than any comparison table.
Send a document and judge the returned file.
Documents are the case this category does not cover. One file will show you whether we do.
- 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.