Guide
How to Choose a Technical Translation Company
Nine criteria decide whether a vendor can handle your manuals, drawings, and compliance files, and each one can be checked before you sign anything. This guide gives you the verification step and the warning sign that goes with it.
Every criterion below comes with a document to request or a question to ask, so the assessment rests on artifacts rather than on sales language.
Each section names the specific answer that should end the conversation, including the certification claims that sound official and mean nothing.
Two categories of work where a different type of agency will serve you better than a technical specialist, and how to recognize them.
First, define what you are buying
The question of how to choose a translation company gets much easier once you decide what kind of translation you actually need. Most buyers skip this step and compare vendors on price per word, which is the one variable that tells you the least. A supplier who is excellent at ad copy and a supplier who is excellent at hydraulic service manuals are competing in different sports, and both will quote you a rate per word.
Before you send an RFP, write down four facts about your own project: the document types involved, the risk attached to an error in them, the file formats they live in, and whether the content will be updated on a cycle. A one-off brochure, a monthly-updated maintenance manual, and a submission dossier for a regulator demand three different vendor profiles. The criteria below are ordered roughly by how often they turn out to be the reason a partnership works or breaks.
How to choose a translation company: the nine criteria that matter
1. Proven specialization in your sector
Sector experience is where technical accuracy comes from. A translator who has spent ten years in medical devices knows which phrasing an auditor expects in an instruction for use, and that knowledge does not transfer to power transmission or petrochemicals.
How to verify: ask for two or three project descriptions in your exact field, with document type, language pair, volume, and the technical difficulty they involved. A specialist answers in specifics within a day. You can see the format in our own published project write-ups.
Red flag: a client logo wall with no description of the work, or a sector list so long that it covers everything from fashion to nuclear.
2. Named translators with checkable qualifications
Someone specific will translate your file. If the agency cannot tell you who, or describes them only as "certified native experts", the work is being brokered rather than staffed.
How to verify: ask for the profile of the translator who would be assigned to your account: native language, technical background, years in the field, association membership. Some agencies publish this openly, as we do for the eight specialists behind our main language pairs. Others share it under NDA, which is fine. Refusing outright is not.
Red flag: "we have access to 5,000 translators worldwide". Access is not selection, and a pool that size is a marketplace, not a team.
3. A documented process with independent revision
The single most reliable predictor of quality is whether a second qualified linguist reviews the full translation against the source. ISO 17100 makes that revision step mandatory, along with defined competence requirements and traceability. A vendor whose price is built on one pass will always be cheaper, and you will find out why during the first release.
How to verify: ask them to walk you through the stages of a project and name who performs each one. Ask specifically whether revision is included in the quoted rate or sold as an option. Our quality assurance workflow is written out step by step for exactly this kind of comparison.
Red flag: proofreading listed as a paid add-on, or a process description that stops at "our expert translates and we check it".
4. Terminology managed as a deliverable
Engineers judge a translation by its terms. If the same component is called three things across a manual, the document loses credibility before anyone evaluates the grammar. Serious vendors build a termbase, get it validated by your people, and reuse it on every subsequent job.
How to verify: ask what happens to terminology between project one and project two, and who owns the resulting files. A good answer includes a validation loop with your engineers and delivery of the termbase and translation memory on request.
Red flag: terminology treated as an internal matter you never see, or a glossary that exists only as a spreadsheet attached to one purchase order.
5. Real capability with your file formats
Technical content lives in formats that punish improvisation: InDesign, FrameMaker, DITA repositories, AutoCAD drawings, XLIFF exports, resource files full of variables. Handing a vendor a DWG and receiving a Word table back is a common and expensive surprise.
How to verify: send a representative sample file at the quoting stage and ask what the deliverable will look like. A capable provider names the tool chain and flags the traps in your specific file, such as text baked into images or overset frames after expansion.
Red flag: "just send us a PDF and we will handle it" with no mention of the editable source, or a desktop publishing surcharge that appears only on the final invoice.
6. References you can actually contact
Anonymous praise proves nothing. Named references, or at minimum detailed accounts with the client's role and sector, tell you whether the vendor survives real deadlines and real review cycles.
How to verify: request two references from accounts of similar size and complexity, and ask those references one question that matters: what happened the last time something went wrong. Vendors also publish client feedback of their own, which is useful for context though never sufficient on its own.
Red flag: testimonials attributed to initials only, review scores with no source, or a refusal to connect you with anyone on grounds of confidentiality across the entire client base.
7. Pricing that itemizes itself
A defensible quote shows the word count, the match analysis, the rate per category, any file engineering or layout work, and the delivery date. That structure lets you compare two proposals honestly. A single lump sum does not.
How to verify: require an itemized quote and ask which discount grid applies to repetitions and previously translated segments. Ask what triggers a rush surcharge. Published rate ranges, like those on our rate and cost page, let you sanity-check a proposal before you even open negotiations.
Red flag: a rate quoted before anyone has seen the files, or an unwillingness to explain how the discount on repeated text was calculated.
8. Confidentiality with contractual weight
Pre-launch specifications, patent drafts, and clinical documentation carry real exposure. The relevant question is not whether the agency signs your NDA. It is whether the same obligations reach the individual translator and any machine translation engine involved.
How to verify: ask for confirmation that all linguists sign confidentiality agreements, ask how files are transferred and how long they are retained, and ask explicitly whether any content passes through public machine translation engines.
Red flag: vague reassurance about "secure servers" with no answer on the machine translation question, or file exchange by consumer email attachment as the standard method.
9. A size that matches your account
Scale cuts both ways. A very large provider brings depth of resource and enterprise systems, but a modest annual spend may land with a junior coordinator and a rotating translator pool. A very small provider gives you continuity and direct access, until the day you need six languages in three weeks.
How to verify: ask where your volume would sit in their client base, who your day-to-day contact is, and what their backup is when that person is out. Ask how many translators they keep in your specific language and field.
Red flag: an evasive answer about account management, or a promise of unlimited capacity in every language pair with no explanation of how it is staffed.
The comparison sheet
Score each shortlisted vendor on the same evidence rather than on impressions. The middle column is what you request; the right column is the line below which the answer disqualifies them for technical work.
| Criterion | Evidence to request | Disqualifying answer |
|---|---|---|
| Sector specialization | Two project descriptions in your field | Logos only, no detail |
| Translator qualifications | Profile of the assigned linguist | Cannot or will not identify anyone |
| Process | Stage-by-stage workflow, with roles | Revision billed as an option |
| Terminology | Termbase policy and ownership terms | No reuse between projects |
| File formats | Deliverable spec for your sample file | PDF in, PDF out, no source needed |
| References | Two contactable clients of similar size | Initials-only quotes, no source |
| Pricing | Itemized quote with match analysis | Lump sum, unexplained |
| Confidentiality | NDA scope down to the translator, MT policy | No position on public MT engines |
| Account fit | Named contact and named backup | Unlimited capacity, unstaffed |
Questions to put in the RFP
Written answers are worth more than a sales call, because they commit the vendor and they can be compared side by side. Nine questions cover most of the ground:
- Who exactly will translate our documents, and what is their technical background in our sector?
- Is independent revision by a second linguist included in the quoted rate for every project?
- Which standard does your process follow, and are you certified by a body or compliant without certification?
- How do you build and validate terminology with our engineers, and do we receive the termbase?
- Who owns the translation memory generated on our account, and in what format is it delivered?
- Which of our file formats can you process natively, and what does the returned deliverable look like?
- What is your discount structure for repetitions and previously translated content?
- Do our files ever pass through a public machine translation engine, and if machine translation is used at all, how is that disclosed on the quote?
- What is your remedy if a delivery misses the quality specification or the deadline?
Question three is the one that separates careful vendors from careless ones fastest, because the honest answer is often more nuanced than the marketing page.
Three traps that cost buyers the most
The rate that looks like a bargain. Professional technical translation with independent revision in the US market generally sits between $0.14 and $0.30 per word depending on language, subject, and format work. A quote at half that has removed something. Usually it is the revision step, sometimes it is human translation itself. The cost surfaces later as engineering time spent fixing terminology, or as a document your local distributor quietly refuses to circulate.
All languages, all domains, all formats. No organization is genuinely strong in 90 languages across every technical discipline. The claim signals a broker layer that will pass your file to whoever is available and cheap that week. Ask which five language pairs and which three sectors they consider their core. A confident specialist answers immediately. A reseller cannot answer at all.
Certification claims with no number attached. "ISO certified" is a meaningless phrase without the standard number and the certifying body. There is also a real and often blurred distinction between an agency certified by an external auditor and one that applies a standard's requirements without formal certification. Both can be perfectly legitimate; describing the second as the first is not. We follow ISO 17100 and say so in those words, and we are members of the ATA and GALA, which are professional associations rather than certifications. Any vendor should be able to draw the same lines about their own claims without hesitating.
A test that takes one email: ask each shortlisted vendor to name one type of project they would decline. A specialist has a ready answer and sounds relieved to give it. A vendor who accepts everything has told you they filter nothing, which is the most useful thing you will learn all week.
When a different kind of agency is the better choice
Honesty about scope is part of the criteria, so it applies to us as well. There are jobs where hiring a technical translation specialist would be the wrong decision.
Conference and on-site interpreting. Simultaneous interpreting is a separate profession with its own training, equipment, and booth logistics. If you need interpreters for a shareholder meeting, a factory audit, or a trade show, go to an agency that staffs interpreters as its core business. Written translation experience does not transfer.
Marketing translation and transcreation. Campaign lines, brand messaging, and website copy that has to persuade require writers who will abandon the source sentence entirely to reproduce its effect. That instinct is the opposite of the discipline technical work demands. Agencies built around copywriters will beat a technical specialist on this material, and the reverse is equally true when the file is a lockout procedure.
Certified translation for immigration and court filings. Birth certificates, transcripts, and litigation exhibits follow procedural rules about certification, notarization, and formatting that specialized providers handle at volume and at low cost. A technical agency can do it, but you are paying for expertise the document does not need.
Run a paid pilot before the framework agreement
Reference checks and RFP answers narrow the field. A pilot decides it. Pick a real document of 2,000 to 4,000 words that is representative of your hardest content, not an easy sample, and give the same file and the same brief to your final two candidates. Pay for both, because a free test attracts effort that does not survive contact with a real production schedule.
Judge the result on four things. Did the terminology match what your engineers use? Did they ask questions during the project, and were the questions intelligent? Did the deliverable come back in the format you specified, with layout intact? Was the quote itemized and the deadline met without a reminder? Our 25-point quality checklist gives your reviewer a structured way to assess the file instead of a general impression. Then request a quote on the same document from each finalist, and read the two itemized breakdowns next to each other. The difference in how they count and explain the work is often clearer than the difference in the translations themselves.
Frequently asked questions
How many translation companies should I shortlist?
Three to five for the initial RFP, then two for a paid pilot. More than five produces a spreadsheet nobody reads and answers that blur together. Fewer than three removes your ability to compare pricing structures, which is often where the real differences show up.
Is a large agency safer than a small one?
Neither size is inherently safer. Large providers offer depth and formal systems but may assign a small account to junior coordination. Small providers offer continuity and direct access to the people doing the work but have limits on simultaneous capacity. The question to answer is where your annual volume sits relative to their client base.
Should I ask for a free test translation?
A short unpaid sample of 200 to 300 words is a reasonable request and most vendors accept it. For anything longer, pay. Free tests are typically handled by whoever is free that afternoon and reviewed with unusual care, so they tell you about the vendor's best day rather than their normal one.
What does "ISO certified" mean on a translation vendor's website?
On its own, nothing verifiable. Ask which standard number, which certification body, and the certificate's validity dates. A vendor that applies ISO 17100 without third-party certification should say so plainly. The claim to question is the vague one, not the modest one.
Can one company handle both our technical documentation and our marketing content?
Some can, provided they staff the two streams with different translators and are open about it. What does not work is one generalist covering both, because the skills pull in opposite directions. If a single vendor is simpler for your procurement, ask them to name the separate teams and show samples from each.