Before I even opened either tool, I thought they were basically the same thing: they both spin, improve, and finesse existing text, right? Nope. The moment I put them side by side on the same paragraph — a slightly clunky product update announcement I had to rewrite for a client — the differences started to pile up fast.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Feature
DeepL Write
QuillBot
Tone control
Default to neutral, lacks tone presets
Multiple tone choice (formal, simple, etc.)
Free usage limits
Fairly generous
Strict character limits unless subscribed
UI speed
Almost instant rewrite
Noticeable lag if slow connection
Integrated dictionary or explanation
Part of main UI, intuitive
Needs hover & expand actions
So no, these tools are not interchangeable. DeepL Write is leaner — it’s almost like a spellcheck with great social skills. QuillBot is more showy, front-loading you with options before it even rewrites anything. They both have their place, but how and where you use them changes quite a bit.
To sum up, they start at the same line but take wildly different turns as soon as you paste in content.
Interface and workflow differences in daily use
Here’s what I didn’t expect: how dramatically the interfaces affected how much I actually used them. DeepL Write feels like an upgraded Grammarly — minimal, distraction-free, and fast. You paste, it rewrites instantly on the right, and suggestions are subtle but correct.
QuillBot, by contrast, feels like being handed a huge dashboard. You pick between modes: Standard, Fluency, Formal, Creative, and a few others. Want to find which word changed? Hover over it. Want to lock a word in place during rewrites? That’s a whole feature toggle. It’s powerful, but it takes effort.
One snag with QuillBot: long input fields often freeze briefly while text processes. On Firefox, the preview rewrite even disappeared mid-cursor before recovering a few seconds later. DeepL Write didn’t glitch once in that regard.
Another annoyance? QuillBot interrupts my writing flow since you often need to reselect the mode or click Rephrase again. In contrast, DeepL just quietly refreshes the rewrite panel as you edit.
The bottom line is, the smoother UX of DeepL Write kept me from closing the tab. QuillBot tempted me to open it — but also made me bail often due to clicks and micropauses.
Level of control over tone and vocabulary
If you need very specific control over tone or vocabulary complexity, QuillBot beats DeepL Write every time. You can literally slide a bar to control the number of synonyms it throws in. Want fewer changes? Just dial it down. Want to preserve technical or branded terms? Lock those words manually before paraphrasing so the tool doesn’t mess them up.
Now, DeepL Write doesn’t let you mess with tone granularity. There’s a default sense of formal clarity, but that’s it. It’s like the tool has a personal bias toward sounding subtly academic. You can edit the result yourself after, of course, but it won’t ask you upfront if you want something casual or promotional.
A good real-world example: I dropped in a customer support email and QuillBot smartly dialed back some curt wording when set to the Formal + Fluency mode. DeepL Write made it grammatically nicer but kept some abruptness in tone, which would have felt cold if I’d sent it that way.
Overall, QuillBot gives you tone filters and lever control. DeepL Write mostly assumes a default style and adjusts around grammar and clarity.
Output quality and common rewrite bugs
Let’s cut to how good the output actually is. Both tools produce clean rewrites, but they have weird quirks under the hood.
QuillBot restructured a proposal to sound smarter — but sometimes hid the subject of a sentence so deep into the syntax that it read robotic. For example, it turned this:
“We want to clarify the communication workflow to prevent ticket bottlenecks.”
into:
“Clarification of the communication workflow is sought, aiming to prevent bottlenecks in ticket handling.”
That isn’t the end of the world. But it’s also not how people talk or write unless they’re composing a legal memo. DeepL Write, meanwhile, reworded the same sentence as:
“We aim to clarify how communication moves between teams to stop tickets piling up.”
Smoother. Less formal. And still accurate. DeepL Write tends to preserve sentence rhythm better — unless there’s ambiguous phrasing. In one test, it rewrote:
“Let’s pull the latest result archive stats.”
as:
“Let’s retrieve the newest statistics from the file that stores previous results.”
Sure, that’s technically clearer, but it sucked the air out of the tech team’s everyday lingo. QuillBot kept something closer to:
“Let’s extract the latest stats from the results archive.”
— which I actually ended up using.
To wrap up, both tools make syntactically impressive sentences, but only one consistently sounds human-friendly.
Which one works better for drafts vs final edits
I now separate how I use them. For draft generation — quick cleanup, turning bullet points into paragraphs — I use DeepL Write. It gets me something polished without me telling it much. For final edit passes where tone or legality really matters? QuillBot.
Example: I used QuillBot’s Formal + Expand mode to rephrase a data compliance note requested by a lawyer. It turned a blunt bullet point into something that looked like it had been reviewed by legal. DeepL’s version felt like a check from a spelling bee judge. Perfect grammar, but stilted nuance.
This also affects versioning. DeepL’s short, clean outputs are perfect for sending initial drafts to teammates. QuillBot’s longer suggestion range with multiple output options makes it a better fit once you have real feedback to incorporate.
As a final point, use DeepL for speed and QuillBot when you need nuance or options.
Pricing realities and free tier limits
This one hurt a little. QuillBot starts limiting you fast. On a free account, I could only paraphrase so many characters per day — one or two marketplace listings and I was locked out. Also, the speed dropped dramatically after hitting those boundaries, with background processing delays kicking in.
DeepL Write allowed more consistent throughput. I didn’t hit any visible caps even after processing an entire ebook chapter, although the inline style stayed constant (again, no tone tweaking).
If you’re doing high-volume content rewriting, QuillBot basically forces you to upgrade quickly. DeepL’s free tier is more generous — but less varied.
In a nutshell, QuillBot charges for flexibility, DeepL gives you free consistency.
Final verdict on which to use (and when)
Honestly, don’t use one exclusively. They serve different parts of the content pipeline.
Use DeepL Write: Quick draft cleaning, web copy rewrite, responsive editing on-the-fly. Ideal if you just want something to sound more natural without extra decisions.
Use QuillBot: Marketing blurbs, academic rewrites, anything where tone is as important as wording. Best if you’re okay tinkering with style knobs before hitting send.
If you need both, keep DeepL Write open in one tab as your headstart engine and jump over to QuillBot when your rewritten text needs final finesse or publishing flair.
Finally, the right pick depends less on the rewrite and more on what happens after you hit the paraphrase button.
