Comparisons. What other solutions do well, and what Corrext adds
Three comparisons written for lawyers and legal experts who will read the line that concerns them and check the rest. We name what DeepL Pro, general-purpose large language models (LLMs) and translation agencies do well. Then we say exactly where the difference lies: where data is processed, Swiss legal terminology and the review chain.
Request a demoThree comparisons, three different questions
The first is about a translation engine, the second about a writing assistant, the third about a way of working. Each one calls for a different answer.
DeepL Pro is an excellent general-purpose translation engine: fast, fluent and at ease with Office documents and PDFs. It remains available in Corrext. What changes is the framework around it.
Read the comparison Corrext and generative AIChatGPT, Azure OpenAI GPT and Claude rephrase, summarise and explain a legal passage with an ease no conventional translation engine can match. That is not where the problem lies. It lies in what they cannot prove.
Read the comparison Translation agency or platformA legal translation agency provides what no software replaces: contractual liability, a named translator, certification. Corrext does not try to replace it. Its project workflow is precisely where you order that external review.
Read the comparisonHow we compare
These pages are written by Neur.on, the publisher of Corrext. So we do not claim to be neutral: we commit to being verifiable. Every row of every table covers a criterion you can check yourself, in both tools, without taking our word for it.
Where your data is stored and processedWhat LexMachina is, and what it is not
- What we compare
Where data is stored and where it is processed, whether a warning appears before a document is sent, Swiss legal terminology available in context, the handling of Swiss legal references, the ability to compare several engines, human review ordered in the tool, the quote and delivery time, certified translation, formats and deployment.
- What we do not compare
Prices: they depend on your volume, your languages and your review level, and a side-by-side price list would mean nothing out of context. Raw speed: all the engines cited translate in a few seconds, and the difference decides nothing. Quality ‘in general’: it cannot be measured on a single sentence.
- What we say about others
Only what is public and stable on the date of checking: the general-purpose nature of an engine, the location of its infrastructure, the absence of an integrated legal review chain, the absence of a Swiss law concordancer with sources.
Where a point seemed uncertain to us, we qualified it rather than settling it. - What we say about Corrext
Only what has been observed in the application. Features not seen in the interface are not promised on this site.
Product facts recorded in Corrext. - The translation examples
These are real outputs, collected in Corrext or directly in the tool being compared, on a given date, from public Swiss statutory provisions. They illustrate a difference but measure nothing: another generation, on another day, would give a different result.
No performance gap is quantified on these pages. - Last checked
September 2026. These pages are revised whenever Corrext or the solutions compared change significantly.
The three comparisons in one table
Each cell reflects the detailed table on the page concerned. ‘Not compared’ marks a criterion that the comparison in question does not cover.
| DeepL Pro alone | Generative AI alone | External agency alone | Corrext | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Getting started | Immediate | Immediate | ½Quote, purchase order, scheduling | Immediate for translation; review ordered in a few clicks |
| Storage and processing of documents | Outside Switzerland | Outside Switzerland | ½Depends on the channel: email, portal, subcontractors | Storage in Switzerland; processing in Switzerland with LexMachina or in Highly sensitive mode |
| Swiss legal terminology | ½Glossaries you build yourself | No source shown | ½Glossary supplied, applied by the translator | CHnell: aligned segments, 30 domains, official sources |
| Several engines on the same sentence | One engine only | One model only | Not compared | Up to four alternatives, each labelled with its engine |
| Quality on a binding document | No ordered review | No ordered review | Its core business | Light, Full or Double review by a legal translator or a certified agency |
| Certified, notarised or apostilled translation | No | No | Yes | Double review & certified translation; translation of commercial register extracts, up to the apostille |
Available and observed½Partial or depends on the planNot available
Full DeepL comparisonFull generative AI comparisonFull agency or platform comparison
Comparison made on the date this page went online, from the publishers' public information and our own observations in Corrext. The products compared change over time: only their official documentation is authoritative.
Further reading
Translate a text or a batch of files, compare engines, check a term in context.
See the tool Translation projectsInternal or external review at three levels, with the quote and delivery time calculated in the tool.
See the tool Security and data sovereigntySwiss storage, Highly sensitive mode, ISO 27001, governance of third-party engines.
See the pageFrequently asked questions about these comparisons
Are these comparisons neutral?
No, and we would rather say so: they are written by Neur.on, the publisher of Corrext. That is precisely why they stick to criteria you can check yourself: where data is stored and processed, Swiss legal terminology in context, the handling of legal references, and whether there is a review chain, a quote and certification. We compare neither prices nor raw speed.
Can Corrext use DeepL Pro, Azure OpenAI GPT or Claude?
Yes. These engines are available in Corrext alongside LexMachina, and you choose one each time you send a text. Because they are hosted abroad, selecting one triggers the Attorney-Client privilege notice, which restates your organisation's policy: full pseudonymisation of the document. So we are not asking you to give up these engines. We suggest using them within a framework that protects your professional secrecy.
What are these comparisons based on?
Everything we say about Corrext has been observed in the application. What we say about other solutions is limited to what is public and stable. The translation examples are real, one-off outputs, never statistical measurements.