Compare
The category manages the work well. The document underneath is still manual.
This is a broad category — project management systems, CAT tools and authoring tools all sit in it, and they do different things. The shared gap is what happens to the file.
What it is good at
Project management is mature across the category. Deadlines, assignment, status and billing are solved problems.
Translator workspaces are what the profession expects. Tools in this category are where translators already work.
Authoring tools solve a different problem — producing the source content — and are not in the translation pipeline at all.
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.
Conversion in and out is fragile
Round-tripping a design-heavy file through a segment format degrades layout quietly, and the degradation is only visible at the end.
Scanned pages have no segments
In a mixed PDF, whether a page needs recognition is a per-page question that segment-based workflows have no natural place to ask.
Reassembly is manual
Rebuilding the document around translated segments lands on whoever has least time, and it is a different problem per format.
Layout quality is unverified
A segment review cannot see that a translated heading overflowed its box. The client can.
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 We do not publish anyone's pricing, including our own.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 your TMS or CAT tool
The document pipeline runs underneath, and nothing above it moves.
Your project management, memory and translator workspace stay exactly as they are. The document comes through us and arrives assembled.
Terminology is not a conflict: your term base stays the system of record, and we take a glossary per job — up to 2000 terms — and enforce it during translation.
Where your system needs to call us directly, that is scoping work. We do not publish a connector list, because the same tool can need very different connections depending on the workflow around it.
Questions
Which tools do you integrate with?
We do not publish a connector list. The same TMS can need very different connections depending on the workflow around it, so integration is scoped per engagement.
Is this a TMS?
No. A TMS manages the work; this produces the document. They are different layers and most engagements run both.
Do we have to migrate anything?
No. Your project management, memory and workspace stay where they are. The document pipeline runs underneath them.
Can you handle authoring-tool output?
If it produces a supported format — PDF, Office documents or images — it can go through the pipeline. Tell us what it produces and we will say whether it is workable.
What about our translation memory?
It stays yours, in your system. We do not ask for a migration, and memory exchange is scoping work if you need it.
Send us the file that normally needs rebuilding.
Whatever TMS you run, the document layer underneath it is the part worth testing.
- 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.