Layout Preservation Scorecard | Trexlator
H1
Layout Preservation Scorecard
Intro (Answer‑first)
We compared layout fidelity across three widely used document translation tools using the same sample files. The goal: check how well each tool preserves tables, images, spacing, and page breaks.
Tools evaluated (replace after your test)
- Tool A (e.g., DeepL Document Translation)
- Tool B (e.g., Google Document Translation)
- Tool C (e.g., Taia / Tomedes / Translated)
Method
- Same file set for all tools
- Same language pair
- Visual side‑by‑side review
- Checklist scoring per file type
Scorecard (fill with real data)
| File Type | Tool A | Tool B | Tool C | Trexlator |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PDF (multi‑column) | __ | __ | __ | __ |
| Word (tables) | __ | __ | __ | __ |
| Excel (formulas) | __ | __ | __ | __ |
| PowerPoint (slides) | __ | __ | __ | __ |
Key findings (placeholder)
- Trexlator preserved tables and spacing most consistently.
- Complex PDFs were the hardest for all tools.
- Slide decks showed the biggest variance in layout fidelity.
CTA
Want the full benchmark? Upload a file and compare.