Tools Sustainability Dashboard
Paratext
Moderate (1.71)Text-only Bible translation standard (30+ years)
Paratext is the dominant Bible translation software supporting more languages and scripts than any other tool. It serves as the standard-setter for Bible translation data format (USFM) and provides comprehensive translation, checking, and project management features.
Detailed Sustainability Scores
While Paratext is widely used and considered essential, it is heavily dependent on ETEN funding, which is being reduced. Securing alternative funding sources remains a significant challenge, making this the highest-risk area despite its strategic importance. The cost to maintain Paratext is high, raising questions among funders about ROI compared to supporting other tools.
Paratext adapts slowly (major updates every ~5 years), but recent moves — such as Platform.Bible — signal a shift toward more frequent updates and external collaboration. AI integration exists but is not yet native to the core workflow. The large user base means interoperability (via USFM) is strong, and many tools are designed to export into Paratext.
Feedback mechanisms are strong for translation consultants and technical experts but less so for emerging Church-Based Translation models. Field-driven innovation is slow, and the interface requires significant training, limiting immediate usability for new translators.
Paratext supports more languages and scripts than any other tool, and works offline with project sharing for online sync. However, it lacks multimodal capabilities (oral, sign) and mobile support. Permission barriers for some church-based teams also limit adoption in certain contexts.
Paratext is not open source, and continuity would be at risk if current leadership or developers stepped away. While documentation and cross-organizational collaboration exist, ultimate control remains with SIL/UBS, and governance is not widely distributed.
As the dominant standard-setter (via USFM), Paratext ensures strong interoperability. Platform.Bible is a promising shift toward more developer engagement, though proprietary structures have presented barriers to some external participation in the past.
Paratext is aligned with movement-wide goals but has a tendency toward prioritizing its own ecosystem over other approaches. While they actively collaborate in some areas, opportunities exist for fuller integration with diverse translation models and broader collaborative approaches.
Key Strengths
- Unmatched script and language coverage, including complex orthographies
- Widely recognized standard (USFM) and strong interoperability
- Large, committed development team with a history of delivering major upgrades
- Comprehensive feature set for traditional translation workflows
Key Recommendations
- Urgently diversify funding sources to reduce ETEN dependency
- Strengthen engagement with emerging Church-Based Translation movements
- Develop mobile and multimodal capabilities (oral, sign language)
- Consider open-source pathways to improve resilience and collaboration
- Accelerate Platform.Bible development for better developer engagement
Key Sustainability Variables
1. Financial Viability, Cost-Effectiveness & Funding Sustainability
How financially viable (including all funding sources) is this solution over its lifecycle, and what regularly measurable Return-on-Investment towards major milestones (AAGs and EVC) does it offer in terms of demonstrated strategic value, efficiency and impact when compared to other relevant options?
2. Technical Adaptability, Interoperability & Extensibility
How well does the solution (regardless of size) adapt to emerging technologies (e.g. AI), integrate with existing systems, and iteratively update or extend functionality in order to reduce the frequency of complete overhauls?
3. User-Centric Adaptability & Responsiveness
How effectively does the solution continuously incorporate user feedback and remain responsive to changing needs and workflows, ensuring intuitive design and long-term cultural relevance across diverse global contexts?
4. Global Accessibility & Local Adoption
Can the solution be effectively used across all regions, and what barriers—technical (e.g. complex scripts, oral, sign), cultural (e.g. localization, customization, training), or infrastructural (e.g. scalable, offline, mobile)—might limit its accessibility (open-access) or local adoption (e.g. security risks), and does it demonstrate alignment with unmet user needs (market fit)?
5. Open Collaboration & Organizational Continuity
What is the likelihood and impact if the current development team or organization loses interest or shifts focus, and who (e.g. cross-organizational trust, capability, and knowledge-sharing) as well as what mechanisms (e.g. open-source, documentation, technical maturity, operational capacity) are in place to pick up the baton and maintain continuity?
6. Technology Standards, Reusability & Developer Support
To what extent are the parts of the solution reusable across similar solutions, and how actively does the organization pursue transparency and collaboration to enable reuse, reduce duplication across organizations, promote best practices, and advance common open standards (e.g. tech stack, frameworks, platforms) to collectively maximize the amount of work-not-done across solutions and devices?
7. Identifying with the Collective Impact Alliance
How closely does the team or organization align their identity, priorities, and efforts with the shared values and collective strategic milestones (e.g. AAGs and EVC) of the broader Bible translation movement, rather than becoming overly identified with specific solutions which may not directly advance these collective objectives?