English: DeepL used to be the preferable alternative to Google translate. However, recently I have noticed that (at least on the free version) the quality has dropped considerably. Also unlike Google the operators give a damn on improving the system's capabilities. Google permits corrections to be put forward. Additionally DeepL has recently introduced a rdicolously low character limit per day. One cannot help thinking the product ceased to be useful as a free tool.Upgrading to the Pro Version by paying for the product, was a thought, but given the company's unprofessional antics, I feel it would be a bad idea.Translation quality in general: I am fluent in German, English, French, Spanish and Italian which I regularly use.The drawback with Google always was (and is): Translations between language couples other than English, are always executed via English, beiieve it or not (there are some exceptions)Now I've thought that DeepL could do better. But it can't. The only advantage, DeepL had, was that it applied A.I. in a more dedicated and aggressive manner than Google. But that comes at a high price. It consists in translation errors, text omissions etc., that are absent in Google that opts for a less creative, but safer method. So DeepL is recommended for professional translators only who desire to save time on typing. Every damn sentence has to be checked for errors.But the following applies: Both Google and DeepL are trained to spot parallel professionally translated documents they integrate in their database. So occasionally one can be lucky and hit one of those goldmines. But you never know how far the coverage extends. That's the risk there is.
