Vs – Which One Can Paraphrase Better?

Two of the most popular paraphrasing tools are and Both of them are top-of-the-line and are famous for making content more clear, compelling, and engaging

However, what if you have to choose one from the two? Which one can perform better when it comes to paraphrasing? Well, in this article, we’re going to answer these questions by providing a detailed comparison. 

We will use a diverse set of sample texts and run them through both paraphrasing tools. Each sample text will be used for a test. i.e. Accuracy test, lexical diversity test, creativity test, etc. After that, we’ll see which tool came out on top in most of the tests and give the final verdict. 

Before we start the comparison though, let us provide a brief introduction to both tools for those who are unfamiliar with them. is an online tool that, as the name suggests, can rephrase any text. It offers the users multiple paraphrasing modes, each providing slightly different results.  

The tool offers both paid and free versions to its users. The paid one has a couple of extra features like there’s an increased word limit, and all the paraphrasing modes are unlocked. Having said that, here’s what looks like. is another paraphrasing tool that’s quite famous at this point. It, too, offers multiple rephrasing modes that users can choose from. 

The free and paid versions are also present, with the paid version offering additional features like unlimited text paraphrasing and unlocking every mode. That said, here’s what it looks like when you open

Now that we’ve provided a general overview of both paraphrasing tools, let’s move on to comparing them. 

Testing and Quillbot to See Which Can Paraphrase Better

Below, we’re going to list the tests and see which tool performs better in each one. It is worth noting that we’ll be using the free version of both tools and their default modes for this comparison. This is because the tool that performs better here will most likely perform better in its paid version and other modes as well. 

Test # 1: Accuracy to The Original Meaning

This test will determine which of the two paraphrasing tools better retains the input text’s original meaning while paraphrasing it.

Since stories usually convey only one certain meaning, it will be best to provide the tools with a short story and see which one paraphrases it better while keeping the original meaning intact. That being said, the input text we’ll be using is as follows. 

“The old willow tree was Sarah’s favorite place.She climbed its branches and made up stories. One day, she found a shiny locket in the dirt. It had a picture of a smiling lady inside. Sarah decided to find out who the lady was. She asked her grandma, who told her it was her great-great-grandmother! Sarah felt happy to have found a piece of her family.”

Providing and paraphrasing the text with Quillbot, we got this result. 

With, the output was as follows. 

Comparing the two results, we can see that both of the tool’s outputs are accurate to the original meaning. They maintain the details and tone of the original text and even improve on them in certain areas. The only line that I felt was not very good is, “to have located the portion of her ancestry”. That seems a bit odd to me else everything was fine. 

So, QuillBot’s output has slightly more complex phrasing, but it works as well. Considering this, we’d like to call this test a draw.

Test # 2: Lexical Diversity

This second test aims to assess the variety of vocabulary used in each of the tool’s outputs. The one that uses a wider set of words, is creative, and avoids repetition is the one that’ll win.

We’ll see how many synonyms and alternate phrases each tool has used in the output. That said, the input text that we’ll use for both tools is the following.

“The city’s downtown is a captivating mix of old and new. Historic buildings with intricate details stand alongside modern glass towers.Cobblestone streets lead to lively markets and cozy cafes, showcasing the city’s rich culture and inviting exploration.”

The paraphrased output that Quillbot gave us can be seen in the image below. 

On the other hand, this is the output that provided us. 

Comparing the two outputs, we can see that uses more variety of vocabulary in its paraphrased output. 

It offers a broader range of synonyms, i.e. “intriguing blend”, “stand in harmony”, and “sleek, modern skyscrapers” that differ from the original text. 

That said, we can see here that Quillbot again uses a bit of overly complex wording that can be a bit tricky to understand for average readers. The lexical diversity is quite good but is just a bit better so it takes the cake in this round. 

Test # 3: Grammar Errors and Fluency

Our third test is aimed at evaluating the grammatical correctness and fluency of the paraphrased outputs of each tool. 

We’ll look for grammar errors like punctuation mistakes, spelling mistakes, etc. Besides these things, weird phrasing and irregular sentence structuring will also be looked out for.

Having said that, any text would work as an input for this test. We settled for the following one. 

“The peaceful coastal town had beautiful beaches with a clear sky. The gentle waves were calming, and the colorful sea life attracted divers. Green hills made a pretty background for the charming village.”

Running this through Quillbot, the output we got can be seen in the image below. 

When it comes to, the output we got is as follows. 

If we do an analysis of both outputs and compare them side by side, we can see that both of them provided results that were totally free from grammar errors. However, when it comes to fluency, the paraphrased output by is very fluent. 

The first sentence of the output Quillbot provided us with can be rephrased for an even smoother reading. did this better with smooth transitions and natural phrasing as well, which is why, it pushes ahead in this test as well. 

Test # 4: Handling of Complex Sentences

The fourth test that we’ll conduct will help us determine which of the two paraphrasing tools can handle complexity better. We’ll input a piece of text that has complex and compound sentences and see which tool can paraphrase it in simple words

The text that we’ll use as an input is as follows. 

“The old oak tree, with its gnarled branches stretching towards the sky, provided shelter for a myriad of creatures. Squirrels scurried among its leaves, birds nested in its canopy, and insects buzzed around its bark. As the wind whispered through its foliage, the tree stood silent witness to the passage of time, its roots anchored firmly in the earth, a testament to resilience and endurance.”

As you can see, the text includes many complex sentences. Running it through Quillbot, the result we got can be seen below. 

On the other hand, the output provided by is as follows.


Comparing the two, we can easily see that has handled complexity quite well than Quillbot. 

Quillbot, instead of simplifying the text while paraphrasing, used more complex words like “multitude” and “tenacity”. On the other hand, used simpler words like “resistance” and “many creatures”

When it comes to compound sentences, both tools were quite good but used simpler structures with fewer clauses, resulting in us declaring it the winner for the fourth test. 

Test # 5: Bias Analysis

This is the last test that we’ll conduct on both paraphrasing tools. Its purpose is to help us figure out how each tool handles biases. The one that creates an output that’s free from biased language and perspective even when a biased text is input will win. 

We’ll input the following biased piece of text into the tools. 

“The iPhone is the pinnacle of technology. Its seamless design and superior performance make it the only choice for those who demand excellence. Android phones, with their clunky systems, are pale in comparison.”

That said, the output provided by Quillbot can be seen below. 

On the opposite end of the spectrum is Its output is the following one. 

If we take a look, we can easily determine that removed most if not all of the bias present in the text. It avoided any superlatives and provided a more balanced perspective on both the iPhone and Android phones. simply paraphrased what was given to it while maintaining the bias, resulting in coming out on top in this test. 

With that, the testing section of our article comes to an end, we’d now like to sum everything up in a table before providing a final verdict so it’s easy for you to recap which tool performed better in each test. 

Summing up – Recap of the tests 

Here’s the table that sums all the tests up. The check represents which tool won in each test. 

Accuracy to Original Meaning
Lexical Diversity
Grammar Errors & Fluency
Handling of Complex Sentences
Bias Analysis

Final Verdict performed better in most of our tests. Therefore, we’re calling it the WINNER when it comes to paraphrasing. While Quillbot was quite good as well, its outputs had a bit more complexity, which is often discouraged. 

Where Quillbot shines though is when the input text has a bit of bias. In such cases, it works better than since it removes any bias in the paraphrased output.

Seamus Wilbor

Seamus Wilbor

Seamus Wilbor, CEO and Founder at Quarule. He has over 20 years of expertise as an AI Consultant in evaluating AI technology and developing AI strategies.