whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Translation & Localization

LILT

Rest of world Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by LILT, Inc. · lilt.com

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

LILT: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai LILT: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds. The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.

LILT at a glance

Vendor
LILT, Inc.
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
Data hosting
Default not stated; pages mention United States source, captured 1 Nov 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates LILT 3.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. LILT is an enterprise AI translation platform built on adaptive machine translation with human review. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 1 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 2 Nov 2026. all sources

LILT alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The In-House Document Translator

Weighted verdict

Works in the legal and export team of a machine builder in Baden-Württemberg with customers in France, Italy, Poland and China. Translates contracts, operating manuals and supplier correspondence every day, with no translation management system and no wish for one. Needs translations that read like the company wrote them, the company's terms kept through a glossary, Word and PDF files back with their layout intact, and a written promise that a draft contract is not kept or used to train anything.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The In-House Document Translator

Panel median The In-House Document Translator This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The In-House Document Translator
Machine translation & AI quality 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Translation memory, terminology & review workflow 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Integrations, file formats & developer tools 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Confidentiality of translated content 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Data export, portability & self-hosting 3 of 5 3 of 5
European sovereignty 2.5 of 5 3 of 5

Machine translation & AI quality

How this is scored

What the machine translation does and how well it is controlled: the languages and language pairs covered, the engine (own neural or LLM model, or a choice of third-party engines such as DeepL, Google, Microsoft or an LLM), glossaries and formality applied during translation, document translation that keeps the layout (Word, PowerPoint, PDF, InDesign), custom or adaptive models trained on the customer's own translations, automatic quality estimation or scoring, and published evaluations of translation quality.

0 — No machine translation of any kind, and no way to connect an engine.

3 — Machine translation is offered or one engine can be connected; languages, glossary use and quality controls are basic or not described.

5 — Machine translation for the major European and world languages with the list published, glossaries applied during translation, a formality or tone setting, document translation that keeps formatting for common office formats, and either an own engine or a choice of several named engines.

8 — Custom or adaptive models that learn from the customer's translation memory or corrections, automatic quality estimation per segment with a threshold that routes weak segments to human review, LLM-based translation with style guides and context, engine selection per language pair stated, and a published quality evaluation with its method.

10 — Translation quality that an organisation can measure and steer: evaluations against named benchmarks or blind human review published with their method, quality estimation calibrated and explained, custom models with their training data and isolation documented, and every machine-translated segment traceable to the engine, model version and glossary that produced it.

Report an error

The In-House Document Translator

Their own context-aware engine adapts in real time from human corrections, they let you bring OpenAI, Anthropic or Google models or build custom models per language pair, and termbase entries are enforced and highlighted during translation with brand tone checked by AI review agents. For my daily contract and manual work the gaps matter: I found no public information on a published language list (only an API endpoint to query), on whether Word or PDF layout is kept, or on a published quality evaluation with its method. 10 12 13 11 5 2

Report an error

Translation memory, terminology & review workflow

How this is scored

How translation is managed as an ongoing process: translation memory with fuzzy matches, a termbase or glossary managed centrally, style guides, review and approval stages, automated QA checks (placeholders, tags, length, terminology, punctuation), an in-context or visual editor, screenshots and context for translators, tasks and deadlines, roles per language, and ordering or inviting human translators and agencies inside the product.

0 — No management of translations at all; text goes in and comes out with nothing stored or reviewed.

3 — Translations can be edited or a glossary kept; translation memory, review stages and QA checks are basic or not described.

5 — A translation memory reused across projects, a central glossary, at least one review or approval stage, automated QA checks for placeholders and terminology, comments and screenshots for context, and roles that limit translators to their languages.

8 — Configurable multi-step workflows with automation rules, an in-context or visual editor for apps or websites, QA checks configurable per project with blocking rules, style guides applied by the AI, translation memory and termbase shared across projects with penalties and priorities, vendor or agency management with ordering inside the product, and progress and cost reporting per language.

10 — A translation process an enterprise runs on: workflows per content type with conditional routing on quality scores, linguistic quality assessment with a named framework (MQM or similar), termbase with approval workflow and forbidden terms, full revision history per segment, and productivity and quality metrics per translator and vendor.

Report an error

The In-House Document Translator

Translation memory and termbase are managed centrally, termbase entries overwrite the memory like dictionary items and are highlighted during translation, which is exactly how I would keep our contractual terms consistent across French, Italian, Polish and Chinese. Review is real: AI review agents make a first error pass, content is routed by risk to human experts (ours or theirs, ordered usage-based), with role-based access, domains, and analytics on quality, spend and turnaround. We found no public information on an in-context visual editor, configurable blocking QA rules, or comments and screenshots for reviewers. 13 12 5 17 19

Report an error

Integrations, file formats & developer tools

How this is scored

How content gets in and out: the file formats supported (XLIFF, PO, JSON, YAML, Android XML, iOS strings and xcstrings, Office documents, InDesign), a REST API and CLI, SDKs and over-the-air updates for apps, Git repository sync (GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket) and CI pipelines, connectors for CMS, shop and design tools (WordPress, Contentful, Shopify, Figma), browser and office add-ins, webhooks, and a JavaScript snippet or proxy for website translation.

0 — No documented way to get content in or out except typing or pasting by hand.

3 — File upload and download or a basic API; formats, repository sync and connectors are basic or not described.

5 — A documented REST API, a list of supported file formats covering the common software and document formats, sync with at least one Git host or CI, and connectors or plugins for several named CMS, shop or design tools.

8 — A CLI and SDKs for named platforms, over-the-air updates for mobile or web apps, Git sync with branching, webhooks, connectors for the main CMS, shop, design and support tools, office or browser add-ins, a public status page, and API limits documented.

10 — Integration that scales across an organisation: an API covering every function of the product with versioning and SDKs, an app or connector framework third parties build on, continuous localization in CI with pull requests opened automatically, and every connector documented with its limits and the fields it syncs.

Report an error

The In-House Document Translator

There is a documented REST API plus more than a hundred named connectors — GitHub, GitLab, Bitbucket and self-hosted Git for code, Contentful, WordPress, Sitecore and other CMS, Shopify and Salesforce Commerce Cloud, Zendesk, Figma, Box and Dropbox — alongside native MCP support and a public status page. For document work the captured pages show TM and termbase formats (TMX, XLIFF, Trados memory files, TBX, CSV) and a claim of translation for image, PDF, audio and video files; we found no public information on a CLI, SDKs, webhooks, or software formats like PO or JSON. 15 1 14 11 19 13 2

Report an error

Confidentiality of translated content

How this is scored

What happens to the text a customer translates: whether source and target texts are stored and for how long, deletion after translation, whether customer content is used to train the vendor's or a third party's models, which machine translation and LLM providers a TMS sends text to and whether that can be restricted or switched off, encryption in transit and at rest, single sign-on, roles and audit logs, and certifications (ISO 27001, SOC 2) with their scope. Where the text is processed is scored under sovereignty.

0 — Customer texts are stored indefinitely and used for the vendor's own purposes, or no statement on data handling exists at all.

3 — The product is described as secure or GDPR-compliant and a privacy policy exists; retention of translated texts, model training and third-party engines are basic or not described.

5 — A documented statement that customer texts are not used to train models, retention or deletion of translated texts stated, the third-party engines or LLM providers named, encryption in transit and at rest, single sign-on on a business tier, and a data processing agreement offered.

8 — Texts deleted immediately after translation or after a retention period the customer sets, third-party AI processing switchable per project or account, zero-retention terms with the named LLM providers, audit logs, granular roles, ISO 27001 or SOC 2 certification stated with its scope, and a private or dedicated deployment option.

10 — Confidentiality that can be verified: an on-premise or customer-controlled deployment, customer-managed encryption keys, every subprocessor that sees content listed with its role, independent audit reports available, and every data flow of a translation request documented end to end.

Report an error

The In-House Document Translator

Security is well documented: SOC 2 Type II with the auditor named, ISO 9001 and ISO 17100, encryption in transit and at rest, role-based access, translation audit trails, single sign-on on the top tier, a data processing agreement, a subprocessor listing in a security portal, and private cloud, on-premise or air-gapped deployment. But the written promise I need most — that a draft contract is never used to train their models — we could not find; retention is a flat 90-day statement rather than something we set or switch per project, and no zero-retention terms with the named LLM providers are stated. 7 16 8 17 5 6 12

Report an error

Data export, portability & self-hosting

How this is scored

Whether translation assets stay the customer's and can leave with them: export of translation memory and termbase in open formats (TMX, TBX, XLIFF, CSV), export of all projects and files, import from another TMS, an API that can read every asset, the return or deletion of data on termination, open-source code and a self-hosted or on-premise edition.

0 — Translations cannot be exported; they exist only in the vendor's interface or engine.

3 — Translated files can be downloaded; export of translation memory and glossary, import and termination terms are basic or not described.

5 — Translation memory exportable as TMX and glossary as TBX or CSV, all project files downloadable, import of translation memory and glossaries from another tool, and an API that reads translations and keys.

8 — Complete export of every asset (memory, termbase, files, comments, history) in open formats, a documented migration path from named competitors, the data returned or deleted on termination under stated terms, and a self-hosted or on-premise edition with its own documentation.

10 — The customer owns the assets end to end: open-source code under a named licence that runs fully self-hosted with feature parity stated, a complete export another tool can import without loss, and the deletion of every copy on termination documented.

Report an error

The In-House Document Translator

Getting data in is well covered — TMX, XLIFF, Trados memory formats, TBX, CSV and more, up to 200MB — and there is a genuinely self-managed edition with its own documentation for on-premise and bare-metal deployment, so our assets could live on our own servers. Export is thinner: the documented export is the termbase to CSV via an API endpoint; we found no public information on exporting the translation memory itself as TMX, on complete export of project files, comments and history, or on data return and deletion at termination. 19 18 13 17 8 9 7

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Who the contracting entity and the parent company are, where texts are translated, stored and processed, and who the subprocessors are (hosting, machine translation engines, LLM providers, CDN for over-the-air delivery, support and payment tools). Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline; translated texts often hold personal data and trade secrets, so the whole chain counts, including the engines a TMS calls. A self-hosted edition the customer runs on its own European servers counts as the customer's chain, whatever the vendor's seat.

0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and no data processing agreement offered.

3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement exist, but hosting location is unstated or non-EU and the subprocessors are not listed.

5 — EU hosting available and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, but parts of the chain (machine translation or LLM providers, CDN, support, payment) run through non-EU providers without a stated safeguard.

8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessors listed with their locations including the engines and LLM providers, a data processing agreement published, and security certifications (ISO 27001, SOC 2) stated — or a self-hosted edition documented that keeps every text on the customer's own servers.

10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting, engine and every subprocessor, or a self-hosted open-source edition with no call home, data export and deletion documented, and certifications published with their scope rather than implied.

Report an error

The In-House Document Translator

The contracting entity and controller is LILT, Inc. of San Francisco, the servers are stated to be located in the United States on Google Cloud, and the stated safeguard for transfers is the European Commission's Standard Contractual Clauses alongside a published subprocessor listing; we found no public information on EU hosting or an EU representative. What lifts it for us is the documented private cloud, on-premise and air-gapped edition with self-managed documentation running on the customer's own infrastructure, which would keep our documents on our own European servers — though the locations of every engine and subprocessor in that chain are not spelled out on the captured pages. 7 16 6 8 12 13 17 1

Report an error

Pricing transparency not rated — the vendor publishes no price

How this is scored

Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: price per tier by characters, words, keys, hosted words or seats, what happens when the volume exceeds the tier, the number of users, projects and languages included, which features (machine translation volume, AI credits, SSO, integrations, API access) cost extra, the free tier and its limits, the self-hosted edition and its support, minimum term and setup.

0 — No public prices at all; every customer is a sales call.

3 — A starting price or a free tier exists, but how cost scales with volume, seats or features is unclear.

5 — Tiers are public with their price per volume band and main inclusions, but at least one commonly needed piece (overage, extra seats, machine translation or AI volume, SSO, connectors) is unpriced or "on request".

8 — Every tier priced publicly with its scaling rule (characters, words, keys, seats), overage handling stated, add-ons and AI credits priced, the self-hosted edition's cost or licence stated, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.

10 — Complete price computability: annual cost derivable for a given volume, seat count and feature set, with every add-on, setup, support and overage fee and the cancellation and data-return terms published.

Report an error

The In-House Document Translator

Every plan — Team, Business, Enterprise, Government — says Contact Sales, and the pricing pages show request-pricing with no figures at all, not even a starting price or a free tier. Each tier's inclusions (number of domains, single sign-on, air-gapped deployment, human verification as usage-based) are published so I know what to ask about, but I cannot compute any annual cost from the public pages alone. 5 10 1

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 of 6 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Hosting location Not determined — uncited Report an error
Hosting options Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Open source Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data processing agreement Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Transfer impact assessment Not determined — uncited Report an error

Questions about LILT

Is LILT European?

No. whats-best.ai classifies LILT as Rest of world.

Where does LILT store data?

The default storage location for customer data is not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026. The vendor’s pages mention United States as hosting location, per the vendor’s page captured 1 Nov 2026.

Does LILT have a free plan?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026.

What are the best alternatives to LILT?

As of 2 Nov 2026, the panel rates SimpleLocalize (3.5/5), Phrase Localization Platform (3.5/5) and Tolgee (3.5/5) highest among the other 12 Translation & Localization products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is SimpleLocalize (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: LILT alternatives.

Where this could be wrong

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

Do you know more about LILT? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (19)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor homepage lilt.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Features page (AI platform) lilt.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Features page (translation assist) lilt.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Integrations page lilt.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Pricing page lilt.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Terms of service lilt.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Privacy policy lilt.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Security / trust page lilt.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Features page (private deployment) lilt.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Machine translation & AI quality — found from sitemap lilt.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Machine translation & AI quality — found from sitemap support.lilt.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Translation memory, terminology & review workflow — found from sitemap lilt.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Translation memory, terminology & review workflow — found from sitemap support.lilt.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  14. 14 Integrations, file formats & developer tools — found from sitemap lilt.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  15. 15 Integrations, file formats & developer tools — found from sitemap lilt.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  16. 16 Confidentiality of translated content — found from sitemap lilt.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  17. 17 Confidentiality of translated content — found from sitemap support.lilt.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  18. 18 Data export, portability & self-hosting — found from sitemap support.lilt.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  19. 19 Data export, portability & self-hosting — found from sitemap support.lilt.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →