Prolexis
Results in the Tech Stack study
Results come from publishers’ answers and cannot be edited by the vendor. Learn more
What its users say (28)
8/10“Good quality of correction.”
8/10“Works very well.”
8/10“Installed by default in our CMS (Swyp).”
7/10“Model management, high cost.”
7/10“Spelling, vocabulary, grammar, conjugation.”
6/10“Natively integrated into Swyp, it does the job.”
4/10“Need to keep updating the tool constantly.”
5/10“Checking is OK but no on-the-fly correction.”
7/10“Yes, but a bit complex to use.”
7/10“Could be more user-friendly.”
7/10“Obvious errors are not corrected, and conversely Prolexis flags non-existent errors because it struggles to understand certain phrasings.”
8/10“Command of our dictionary and typographic specifics. Integration with all our editorial tools.”
8/10“A long-standing tool at our company.”
6/10“The plug-in is not very well integrated into the CMS, but it is better than nothing.”
8/10“Long-standing tool of the print newsroom, with its SaaS version natively implemented in our CMS. No need to look elsewhere.”
8/10“Interesting but Prolexis sometimes adds surprising errors.”
7/10“High-performing solution, but one that requires quite a lot of investment from the proofreading team to keep the dictionaries up to date.”
7/10“The quality of service is there; the solution is a bit expensive.”
3/10“Very poor ergonomics. The tool has not evolved at all. We use it via Sirius.”
9/10“It corrects almost everything.”
8/10“Implemented in our CMS, easy to use.”
6/10“Prolexis is a good proofreading solution, but it requires constant updating of the dictionaries and the house style guide to be effective across the organisation. The cost is not "neutral" either when there are a large number of licences.”
5/10“Difficult to evolve the tool. Not always suited to our CMS but the partner makes the effort to make it work. Interface not very modern.”
10/10“Highly configurable, it is adapted to our uses and to our lists of banned words. Relevant suggestions.”
5/10“Jumping from one word to the next is a bit slow.”
9/10“Comprehensive software, integrated into our editorial environment.”
8/10“Effective tool. But we have chosen to keep a sub-editor for this.”
6/10“It is not that practical.”
Anonymised comments from study respondents.