https://deepl.com https://deepl.com seems to be better at this. I've long been looking for differences, dreading that Google (with its superior amount of money,

https://deepl.com https://deepl.com seems to be better at this. I've long been looking for differences, dreading that Google (with its superior amount of money, larger dataset, and perhaps also a larger talent pool) would outperform it on something. It has always been on par so far, often giving word-for-word the same translation. When trying the author's example, however, Deepl actually does it correctly (also outperforming Microsoft Translate, which I threw in for good measure): the manually-translated french turns into correct English. (Not speaking French, I can't judge the french translation it makes.) Now I'm reading this article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21559633 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21559633 and this made me curious again: > However, in German, there is no expectation at all that the subject must come first (although it often does). These two German sentences share the same meaning: "Der Hund hat den Ball." and "Den Ball hat der Hund." It totally trips up Google (Den ball hat der Hund -> "the ball has the dog") but Deepl has this sort of silliness for breakfast (Den ball hat der Hund -> "the dog has the ball"). Of course, this is not negating the point of the article: translating is interpreting (or "art", as the author puts it), so deepl still can't be as good as a human. But for edge cases, deepl does seem to be better, at least in these two examples. In real-world cases that I tried so far, as mentioned, I've found it to be 100% equivalent so far (n=20 or so).