Wordly vs Interprefy: live translation compared
Competitor pricing and limits below were checked on . Vendors change terms without notice — every claim links to the source it came from.
The one-line difference
Wordly is pure AI. Interprefy is hybrid — AI with the ability to bring in human interpreters, including escalation within a session.
Almost everything else follows from that.
Side by side
| Wordly | Interprefy | |
|---|---|---|
| Model | Pure AI | Hybrid: AI + human interpreters |
| Human escalation | No | Yes |
| Languages | 60 speaker / 7 attendee, 3,000+ pairs | 82 full, ~19 partial |
| Pricing published | No | No |
| Pricing model | Annual hour tiers (10/25/50/100/250/500+) | Hours and number of languages |
| Minimum | 10 hours | Via sales |
| Unused hours | Expire after 12 months | Do not roll over |
| Jurisdiction | US | Swiss |
| Compliance | SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001, HIPAA | — |
| Scale | 5,000+ organisations | — |
Where each one is stronger
Wordly is the stronger choice when the work is pure AI translation at scale and procurement is the hard part. The compliance position — SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001 and HIPAA together — clears enterprise review without argument, and 5,000+ organisations is a reference base that answers the “who else uses you” question on its own.
Interprefy is stronger when you may need a human. That optionality is real: a session that starts on AI and escalates when the stakes rise is something Wordly structurally cannot offer. Its 82 full languages also exceed Wordly’s speaker coverage, and the Swiss base matters in European procurement where counterparty jurisdiction is assessed.
The pricing difference that decides most cases
Both hide their prices, so neither wins on transparency. The structural difference is what to model.
Wordly prices by hours, in tiers, with a 10-hour minimum and 12-month expiry.
Interprefy prices by hours and by number of languages.
If your events are one or two languages each, Interprefy’s language component barely registers and the comparison comes down to rate and capability. If your sessions routinely run four or five languages, that component compounds and Wordly’s flat-by-hours model is likely cheaper for the same volume.
Ask both for a quote against your actual language count per session, not against total hours. That is the number that separates them.
The questions to put to both
- Effective per-hour rate at your realistic tier
- What counts as an hour — session length, per attendee, per language?
- Written terms on unused hours
- Per-session minimum — does a 30-minute meeting bill as an hour?
- For Interprefy: exactly how a “language” is counted
- For Wordly: what happens at renewal if usage came in under forecast
Which to shortlist
- Need human interpreters, or might → Interprefy
- Pure AI, enterprise procurement, certifications required → Wordly
- Many languages per session → model Wordly first
- European counterparty required → Interprefy
- Predictable annual volume → either; compare rates
- Irregular usage, short notice, small groups → neither model fits well, and that is a different conversation
When not to choose VoxTranslate
This page compares two vendors, neither of which is us, and for large events either will serve you better than we will. Both are built for conferences — one speaker, many listeners — which is a different technical problem from a small group where everyone speaks. Wordly holds SOC 2 Type II, ISO 27001 and HIPAA and serves 5,000+ organisations; Interprefy is Swiss and can escalate from AI to human interpreters mid-session. We have none of those things. If you are running a congress, if your procurement requires certifications, or if you may need a human in the loop, choose between these two and do not consider us at all. We are only worth looking at if what you actually have is not an event but a recurring conversation among a few people in several languages, happening often enough and at short enough notice that neither vendor's model fits.