Translation Management Comparison

	A	C	D	E	F	G
1	Project	Transifex	Pootle	TranslateWiki	Zanata

2	Cross-project translation teams	Yes	Yes	No	yes
3	Cross-project translation memory	Yes	yes	No	yes
4	Strong crowdsource community	Yes	No	Yes	Red Hat Translator community, Jboss.org translator community
5	Good in-browser translation interface	Good	Good	Acceptable	Rrich translation editor which supports keyboard shortcuts, simultaneous users with no need for locking documents (like Transifex), and many other features.
6	Good in-browser review interface	Good	Only suggestions can be approved and rejected. If translator selects "submit" directly, there is no buttons to approve or reject.	Acceptable	Yes
7	Good in-browser user management interface	Yes	Acceptable		Functional User management interface. ( language team is not within projects, but server)
8	Simple management interface for project resources	Yes	No - projects can only have one resource		Projects can have multiple resources (aka documents), management functions well providing upload and delete functionality. Most of it is controlled through the clients.
9	Good in-browser management of resource priorities	Yes	No - no ability to manage priorities		No
10	Simple translate-to language selection/interface	Yes - can select by project, resource or language. Only lists languages in use by project.	Yes - can select by language or project But translators cannot edit. Only admin can add/remove languages.	No - shows all languages for all projects, must use interface in translating-to language	Yes. But only admin can add/remove languages.
11	Git/GitHub Integration	Yes	Yes	Yes	Through external tools.
12	Bug Tracker Integration	Yes (w/ web hooks)	Yes	???	No
13	Easy import/export of translation files	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes. Through web UI, or command line clients.
14	Support for all common translation formats	Yes	Yes	Some	Zanata supports PO, xliff, properties, Open office documents.
15	Hooks for CI infrastructure	Yes	Yes	???	Command lines are supported.
16	Management workflows that fit OpenStack process	Yes	Yes	No (commit access/management by translatewiki staff not acceptable)	More interactions in command lines. Not able to integrate with the automation jobs.
17	Automatic creation of resources by upload	Yes	No		Yes
18	Hosted vs. Self-hosted	only hosted	Either	Hosted Only	Either. More suitable for self-hosted.
19	Core Technologies	Python/Django	Python/Django	PHP	Java
20	Proven success with large projects (popularity)	Yes (Mozilla [Firefox], Django, Creative Commons, Redhat, etc.)	Yes (Mozilla [misc], LibreOffice)	Yes (MediaWiki)	Yes (RHEL, oVirt, Jboss, etc.)
21	API to gather statistics about translators	Premium only	No/Implementable	Yes, needs investigation	No
22	Cross-project glossary and dictionary	Yes	Yes, via Terminology project		There is a bug when I try this function. So I don't see the function. But I think the answer should be yes.
23	Easily see the translating context, i.g. the paragraph or section that contains the translation string.	Support exists, not investigated	yes	Yes	The path in the po files are not shown.
24	Query by filename (eg to assign particular xml files for translation within a resource, as in Japanese ops guide translation)	yes	No		No
25	Merging of uploaded PO files, so that only translations that changed in the PO file are changed in the project. Avoids overwriting when multiple translators work offline.	no - locking required.	Conflicting strings become 'suggestions' - leads to out-of-date strings cluttering suggestions and manual effort		Allow merging. The merging policy is not clear.
26	Performance of translation memory matching for non-latin languages	Good	Uses Levenshtein distance		Uses Levenshtein distance.
27	Translation of documents from non-English source	Yes	no place to select the source language.		Yes
28	Work offline	yes	yes	yes, but needs user role configuration	yes (java cli tool)	yes (java cli tool)
29	Management of multiple versions of translation for a resource	no	no	no	no
30	Support for translating wiki pages	no	no	yes	no	No
31	Code maturity	> 3 years	> 3 years	2 years	> 3 years	> 3 years
32	Code stability (unstable, stable but old, stable and maintained)	stable + maintained	actively maintained	actively maintained	actively maintained, but I met with 2 bugs while I tried.
33	Available case studies	lots	lots	some	used by jboss.org	Used by Jboss AS, RHEL, oVirt, Satellite, RHEV, and others.
34	Community management style (tech governance)	Proprietary	Sponsored	Volunteers	Sponsored
35	Development Team size	Proprietary	34 total - ~5 core	~2 core	~13 total - ~5 core
36	Training available? (devs, users, none)	n/a	limited	limited	no
37	Documentation	extensive	good	doxygen and wiki pages	good
38	QA process	n/a	Improving	unit tests, integration tests	unit tests, integration tests, functional tests
39	QA tools		travis-ci	gated commits	Github pull request review.
40	Code comments	n/a	well commented	low	low
41	Bugs/Pull request reactivity	n/a	good		good
42	Roadmap		no	Somewhat	Basic
43	Technical Support	Commercial, 1 vendor	Commercial available, 1 vendor	community only	Red Hat commits best effort support to Openstack
44	Number of translators we would lose by moving to this solution	0	lose more than 30%	lose more than 30%	lose more than 30%.
45	OpenID	No	YES	NO	YES
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100