Account Options>

  1. Sign in
Translation Management Comparison
 Share
The version of the browser you are using is no longer supported. Please upgrade to a supported browser.Dismiss

 
$
%
123
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
|
 
Still loading...
ACDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST
1
ProjectTransifexPootleTranslateWikiZanata
2
Cross-project translation teamsYesYesNoyes
3
Cross-project translation memoryYesyesNoyes
4
Strong crowdsource communityYesNoYesRed Hat Translator community, Jboss.org translator community
5
Good in-browser translation interfaceGoodGoodAcceptableRrich 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 interfaceGoodOnly suggestions can be approved and rejected.
If translator selects "submit" directly, there is no buttons to approve or reject.
AcceptableYes
7
Good in-browser user management interfaceYesAcceptableFunctional User management interface. ( language team is not within projects, but server)
8
Simple management interface for project resourcesYesNo - projects can only have one resourceProjects 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 prioritiesYesNo - no ability to manage prioritiesNo
10
Simple translate-to language selection/interfaceYes - 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 languageYes. But only admin can add/remove languages.
11
Git/GitHub IntegrationYesYesYesThrough external tools.
12
Bug Tracker IntegrationYes (w/ web hooks)Yes???No
13
Easy import/export of translation filesYesYesYesYes. Through web UI, or command line clients.
14
Support for all common translation formatsYesYesSomeZanata supports PO, xliff, properties, Open office documents.
15
Hooks for CI infrastructureYesYes???Command lines are supported.
16
Management workflows that fit OpenStack processYesYesNo (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 uploadYesNoYes
18
Hosted vs. Self-hostedonly hostedEitherHosted OnlyEither. More suitable for self-hosted.
19
Core TechnologiesPython/DjangoPython/DjangoPHPJava
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 translatorsPremium onlyNo/ImplementableYes, needs investigationNo
22
Cross-project glossary and dictionaryYesYes, via Terminology projectThere 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 investigatedyesYesThe 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)yesNoNo
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 effortAllow merging. The merging policy is not clear.
26
Performance of translation memory matching for non-latin languagesGoodUses Levenshtein distanceUses Levenshtein distance.
27
Translation of documents from non-English sourceYesno place to select the source language.Yes
28
Work offlineyesyesyes, but needs user role configurationyes (java cli tool)yes (java cli tool)
29
Management of multiple versions of translation for a resourcenononono
30
Support for translating wiki pagesnonoyesnoNo
31
Code maturity> 3 years> 3 years2 years> 3 years> 3 years
32
Code stability (unstable, stable but old, stable and maintained)stable + maintainedactively maintainedactively maintainedactively maintained, but I met with 2 bugs while I tried.
33
Available case studieslotslotssomeused by jboss.orgUsed by Jboss AS, RHEL, oVirt, Satellite, RHEV, and others.
34
Community management style (tech governance)ProprietarySponsoredVolunteersSponsored
35
Development Team sizeProprietary34 total - ~5 core~2 core~13 total - ~5 core
36
Training available? (devs, users, none)n/alimitedlimitedno
37
Documentationextensivegooddoxygen and wiki pagesgood
38
QA processn/aImprovingunit tests, integration testsunit tests, integration tests, functional tests
39
QA toolstravis-cigated commitsGithub pull request review.
40
Code commentsn/awell commentedlowlow
41
Bugs/Pull request reactivityn/agoodgood
42
RoadmapnoSomewhatBasic
43
Technical SupportCommercial, 1 vendorCommercial available, 1 vendorcommunity onlyRed Hat commits best effort support to Openstack
44
Number of translators we would lose by moving to this solution0lose more than 30%lose more than 30%lose more than 30%.
45
OpenIDNoYESNOYES
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
Loading...
 
 
 
Sheet1