Report by Sarah Hickey and Rosemary Hynes.
Chances are the information you came here for is the ranking of interpreting providers, which is presented in the table below. The ranking is based on revenue and lists the top 34 largest interpreting service providers worldwide.
The Watchlist consists of companies that should be in the ranking but are not listed because they do not disclose, publish, or otherwise reveal their revenue. We provide visibility to such companies on the Watchlist to highlight their impact on the industry.
The reason it is important for us to track these companies is that even though some might not compete for clients, they all compete for talent and resources. They also represent opportunities for technology providers and investors.
The companies are listed in alphabetical order.
A lot has changed on the ranking since the previous 2021 edition. Here is a brief overview to help you better navigate the ranking.
LanguageLink ranked 15th in 2021, with a confirmed interpreting revenue of USD 24.0 million. BIG Language Solutions acquired the company in 2021, so now all interpreting operations from LanguageLink operate under the BIG Language Solutions brand. This is why LanguageLink was renamed to BIG Language Solutions in this year’s ranking.
The below providers were moved from the ranking onto the Watchlist because they either did not respond to our requests for information or were unable to provide their revenue information and the data available in public records was insufficient to make an informed estimate.
During the course of this market analysis, Nimdzi uncovered interpreting companies that have previously been invisible in market reports because they do not participate in surveys and are reluctant to disclose their revenue. Nimdzi has employed an investigative approach and invested hundreds of hours into intense research, data collection, and analysis in order to present previously unavailable data.
We are very proud to offer broad access to our data. This ranking is offered to all who are interested. No paywall. No strings attached. Localization buyers, investors, savvy job seekers, and analysts are all welcome to use this document, just don’t forget to reference Nimdzi Insights, LLC, as the source. Interested parties are free to reach out to us directly should they have any questions.
When we last published the Nimdzi Interpreting Index in September 2021, we were looking back at revenues and trends from companies’ fiscal year 2020 — a challenging year for interpreting services, to say the least. While some were struggling because onsite interpreting had effectively come to a halt once the pandemic hit, others were overwhelmed with the sudden flood of demand for remote interpreting services, managing entirely new meeting formats, and figuring out integrations with major video conferencing platforms (e.g. Zoom, MS Teams, Webex). For many language service providers (LSPs), these first few months of the pandemic (March to June 2020) were a mix of shock-induced paralysis and scrambling to catch up with the new demands of a market that had changed overnight. It is not surprising that during this time, the majority of interpreting service providers experienced a dip in their growth curve, before adjusting to the situation and ultimately seeing growth not only resume but skyrocket in the second half of 2020 and throughout 2021. And just as everyone had settled into the “new normal,” meeting restrictions were lifted and the situation changed again.
So what does today’s interpreting market look like, in mid 2023?
In previous editions of the Interpreting Index and the Nimdzi 100 (our ranking of the 100 largest LSPs in the world) we already talked about the fact that interpreting has gone more mainstream, meaning that it is increasingly moving into a top-of-mind position for buyers and starting to show up in more areas of everyday life. That the overall demand for interpreting services has increased, in many ways fueled by the boom in remote interpreting since the onset of the pandemic, is reflected in the growth of the top 34 providers on our ranking.
Looking at the data from this year’s study, the figures are overwhelmingly positive. 25 of the 34 LSPs on our ranking report positive growth for their latest financial years 2021 and 2022. Out of these, 15 had double-digit growth and five even reported triple-digit growth figures. Only five companies reported negative growth and the remaining four companies on our list did not submit their 2020 revenue information to allow for this calculation. This shows that even though many interpreting providers struggled at the beginning of the pandemic, the majority came out stronger.
Looking ahead, it will be interesting to see how the market will “settle” now that even the last COVID-19 restrictions have been lifted. In interviews for this report, a few LSPs reported that volumes for remote assignments are in decline as onsite assignments are returning. At the same time, we can observe that there is still a significantly higher demand for remote interpreting than in pre-pandemic times. Especially as internet bandwidth is improving in public places (e.g. hospitals) and people have adjusted to the comforts that come with any form of remote work, we can expect that remote interpreting will still be in high demand from here on out, just with more moderate growth than the hockey stick growth curve experienced during the height of the pandemic.
Between 2020 and 2022, the combined revenues of the top 34 positions on our ranking grew by 52.6%. In comparison, between the years 2018 and 2020, the combined revenues of the largest interpreting providers only grew by 17.8% — a difference of 34.8 percentage points.
The ranking segment with the strongest growth are the companies in the top 10 positions, whose combined revenues increased by 62.5% over the last two years (compared to 20.7% for the previous two-year period). This is closely followed by the top 20, whose revenues rose 54.8% between 2020 and 2022 (compared to 18.9% for 2018-2020). The combined revenues of positions 21 to 34 on our ranking grew by 23.7% as compared to the same ranking segment two years ago (compared to 5.4% growth between 2018 and 2020).
Note: In the 2018 edition of the Index we listed 33 companies, in 2021 we listed 36 companies on 35 positions, and this year we have 34 companies on our ranking.
Note: In the 2018 edition of the Index we listed 33 companies, in 2021 we listed 36 companies on 35 positions, and this year we have 34 companies on our ranking.
Note: In the 2018 edition of the Index we listed 33 companies, in 2021 we listed 36 companies on 35 positions, and this year we have 34 companies on our ranking.
Looking at the figures of the individual companies on this year’s ranking, the average growth rate for the financial period between 2020 and 2022 comes out at 61.8%.
While all of these growth figures are impressive, it needs to be stressed that they represent growth over two financial years (since our report comes out every two years). In addition, a significant portion of this growth can be attributed to mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in the interpreting market (see M&A section of this report). That being said, a number of companies on our list also reported record growth due to increased demand. The most significant spike was recorded in remote interpreting, but even onsite assignments increased for some. In addition, several LSPs on our list cited higher volumes due to large government contracts. So while M&A played a role in the growth rates for the 34 largest interpreting providers in the world, it certainly was not the only factor.
Considering the data from the top 34 global interpreting providers, the survey for this report, as well as numerous interviews with market players of all sizes, we are confident that the interpreting market continued to grow in 2021 and 2022. In fact, as reported in the previous section, growth was overwhelmingly high over the last two years (61.8% on average for the individual providers and 52.6% when it comes to the combined revenues of the top 34 positions as compared to the previous ranking).
In 2021, we estimated that market reached USD 8.3 billion in 2020 and would reach USD 9.3 billion in 2022, growing to USD 11.0 billion by 2025 at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 5.8%. Considering the high growth figures for the top 34 positions between the years 2020 and 2022, we are revising our estimate to reflect a one-off increase of 10% for each of these two years for the market at large. Going forward, we can expect growth to slow down as compared to the last two years but to be stronger than in pre-pandemic times (thanks to higher adoption levels and increased awareness). So from 2023 onward, we expect the market to growth at a CAGR of 6.2%.
Taking all of this into account, our estimate is that the interpreting industry reached USD 10.0 billion in 2022 and should grow to USD 10.7 billion in 2023. Considering a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.2 %, the industry would be valued at USD 13.6 billion by 2027.
Although consolidation continues, the interpreting market is still predominantly made up of many small companies and one-person operations. The companies in our ranking accounted for just 23.7% of the overall interpreting industry in 2022 — a rise of 5.0% from 2020. Adding in the Watchlist, all 72 large interpreting providers tracked by Nimdzi accounted for 38.1% of the interpreting market in 2020.
In absolute figures, the 72 companies tracked by Nimdzi earned about USD 3.8 billion in their latest fiscal years. The top 10 companies were responsible for 51.7% of that total.
Despite ongoing consolidation at the top, the industry is still predominantly made up of companies smaller than USD 4 million.
For a few years now, M&A activity as well and investment in the industry at large have been on the rise. In the interpreting sector, it doesn’t really come as a surprise that, with the explosion of virtual interpreting technologies (VIT) and innovation, investors' heads have been turning, and we’ve seen an influx in investment in VIT over the past few years.
Boostlingo, an interpreting delivery and management platform received USD 3.4 million in a Series A funding round in 2018 and then received a growth equity investment from Mainsail Partners in August 2021. However, the size of the investment was not disclosed. Originally focused on on-demand video remote interpreting (VRI) and over-the-phone interpreting (OPI) (aside from interpreter scheduling and management (IMS)), the company acquired remote simultaneous interpreting (RSI) platform Voiceboxer in March 2022 to round out their offerings in addition to acquiring former rival platform Interpreter Intelligence (another IMS and OPI/VRI platform).
Cloudbreak-Martti (now part of UpHealth, which provides digital healthcare solutions, including remote interpreting) is another OPI/VRI tech provider that received funding. In February 2020, Cloudbreak announced a USD 10 million investment from Columbia Partners Private Capital of Bethesda, and according to the company’s website this was preceded by another investment of USD 25 million by Kayne Partners (date undisclosed). Last but not least, US-based, woman-run platform Jeenie raised USD 9.3 million in a Series A funding round on March 31, 2022. The company specializes in healthcare interpreting and also facilitates other use-cases through its VRI application, such as virtual meetings in the areas of legal and education.
Tech providers from the RSI scene have also caught investors’ attention. RSI platforms Interprefy, KUDO, and Interactio have all received investment over the past three years. The USD 30 million raised by Interactio remains the largest investment in a pure VIT solution to date (compared to Cloudbreak/UpHealth that focuses on digital healthcare solutions at large).
What’s interesting to note is that although VIT providers from different kinds of the spectrum received funding, it appears that the investment is paying off better in the OPI/VRI sectors than the RSI field. After KUDO and Interactio raised significant funds (USD 27 million and USD 30 million respectively), both companies had layoffs one to two years later. This may quite possibly be related to the fact that the massive RSI boom experienced during the pandemic could not be sustained in post-pandemic times (despite the fact that online meetings and events are sticking around, just to a lesser extent than in 2020). On the contrary, VIT providers in the OPI/VRI space are still talking about hyper-growth spurts in 2023. Looking at the portfolios of the OPI/VRI companies who received funding — all of them derive a large portion of their business from the healthcare sector, a field that is less prone to high fluctuations in demand, especially given an aging population, paired with an increasing move toward telehealth in markets like the US.
While investment in the interpreting space was largely focused on the tech side, when it comes to M&A, there were a number of noteworthy activities on the LSP front over the last two years:
While some acquisitions might be driven by the desire to buy out (local) competition, others are more strategic partnerships in the company’s effort to enhance their service portfolio. Overall, these developments show that the interpreting market is evolving and that even companies from outside the interpreting industry are starting to see the potential for growth in the interpreting sector.
Nimdzi has been tracking the evolution of gross margins tied to both interpreting and translation services for a number of years and they have remained relatively stable over time. Average gross margins for translation are in the 40-50% (a well-run LSP would have gross margins in the high 40s), while in interpreting it has historically been between 30-40%. Data from this year’s Nimdzi 100 survey show that this generally still holds true. 29.7% of companies reported that their gross margins for translation services are in the 41-50% range. In addition, another 25.7% even said their gross margins for translation fall into the 51-60% bracket. On the interpreting side, 30.2% of respondents said their gross margins are in the 31-40% range and an additional 17.5% reported gross margins in the 21-30% bracket.
In the 2021 edition of the Nimdzi Interpreting Index we reported that, for interpreting services, the gross margin range started widening to 30-50%, which we linked to the boom in remote interpreting that typically enjoys higher profit margins (less time intensive, no travel costs). This year, however, significantly fewer LSPs reported gross margins in the 41-50% bracket for interpreting services — only 14.3%, which is the same amount as those who said their gross margins are in the 11-20% range. It is not unlikely that this is related to the fact that more onsite assignments have returned (although remote interpreting is still going strong as well).
Overall the results show that translation still remains the more profitable line of business.
Out of 72 medium-to-large-sized companies identified in 2022, 50.0% are headquartered in North America and 36.1% in Europe. Companies from Asia and Oceania each represent 6.9% of the geographical distribution. Africa and South America have not yet produced an LSP that could be included in the Nimdzi Interpreting Index.
The graph below represents the split by geographic region, based on our estimate of the total market size of USD 10.0 billion for interpreting services worldwide in 2022.
What both visualizations above illustrate is that the United States remains the largest market for interpreting services in the world. This is mostly due to laws that guarantee language access to people with limited English proficiency in public service and healthcare settings. In addition, the United States is ahead of the curb in the area of interpreting technology. For instance, remote interpreting solutions have been commonplace for a long time and continue to expand the market, especially in the healthcare industry ― whether that is OPI for 911 emergency calls, VRI with special tablets for consultations in the hospital or in vaccine centers, or telehealth providers integrating interpreting solutions into their platforms.
In this section, we’re going to focus on the solution that received the most significant boost in the virtual interpreting technology (VIT) space in recent years: remote simultaneous interpreting (RSI). As meetings and events moved online during the pandemic, requests for RSI skyrocketed and ever since, providers in this space have been adapting their solutions to the ever-evolving needs of new and existing clients. Today, there are many different types of RSI platforms that all cater to different use-cases. Naturally, this can make it hard to find one that is most suited for your business needs.
Since March 2020, we have learned about a whole host of different solutions for RSI. There are so many that it can be easy to get them all mixed up. So we have broken them down into four categories.
Let’s take a look at each category in more detail.
An example of a video conferencing platform which doesn’t have its own RSI capabilities is Skype. However, that doesn’t mean that it is impossible to do simultaneous interpreting on Skype, it just means that a workaround is needed. This could be:
Zoom is the biggest de facto RSI platform, judging by the number of meetings. Platforms like Zoom, Webex, Google Meet,and Microsoft Teams(MS Teams) fall under this category. MS Teams is the latest video conferencing platform to add an RSI feature in August 2022. Video conferencing platforms like these were not designed with multilingualism and RSI in mind, but added an RSI feature onto their interface when demand for remote multilingual meetings peaked during the pandemic. Subsequently, the RSI features on these platforms are relatively limited. For example, Zoom only added relay (i.e. when an interpreter interprets from a colleague’s output rather than from the original speaker, in a case where the interpreter doesn’t work with the current speaker’s language) in Spring 2022, and the Google Meet interpreting extension doesn’t allow for multiple booths. Features like a mute button, individual interpreter chats, a handover feature/button, a timer, and an audio volume-control button are often missing from these platforms as well.
This type of platform can host its own meetings but RSI is its raison d’être. Many examples of such platforms can be seen in our Language Technology Atlas. The interpreter control panel is quite complete and often aims to resemble that of an in-person booth as much as possible. There are two typical scenarios for the use of designated RSI platforms:
In both cases, whether the meeting happens on the RSI platform or not, the interpreters are typically not visible to the speakers and attendees (although some platforms can enable this upon request). They act in the background, just as they would in an onsite meeting when they interpret from a physical booth.
Just like with a physical soundproof booth at an onsite meeting, these platforms function alongside the original meeting taking place on a video conferencing platform. The two major distinctions from standalone RSI platforms are that virtual booths do not integrate with video conferencing platforms but, rather, run in parallel and that they don’t function as standalone meeting platforms. When using this technology, interpreters join the original meeting on a video conferencing platform so they can access the audio and video feeds directly. From there, the interpreters listen to the speeches and deliver the interpretation into the original meeting. However, the interpreters’ rendition is also transmitted into the virtual booth tool alongside the original meeting, so that the interpreters can listen to each other’s interpretation and take relay.
Interpreters and clients may prefer virtual booths to standalone RSI platforms for three primary reasons:
The best RSI solution for you or your clients will depend on your requirements and budget. Here, we have created a brief table outlining the different RSI solutions and their advantages and disadvantages.
Type of RSI solution | Advantages | Disadvantages |
Video conferencing platforms without an RSI feature | Low cost Ability to use the platform of your choice with a workaround Interpreters can be present in the original meeting | Quite complicated setups that often require a tech team Limited interpreting features The larger and more multilingual the meeting, the more complex these are to set up |
Video conferencing platforms with an RSI feature | Low cost Basic RSI features Interpreters can be present in the original meeting Good event management features | Often requires tech savvy interpreters to work around the shortcomings of the interpreting features No designated RSI technical team Large, multilingual meetings can be hard to set up |
Standalone designated RSI platforms | Often have their own interpreter database for booking interpreters Excellent RSI features for the interpreters Can hold the meeting on the platform Designated RSI technical teamInterpreters don’t need to perform beyond their role | Expensive Complicated setup if client chooses to use own technicians (vs. the RSI platform’s tech team) Interpreters are typically not part of the original meeting but operate in the background Event management features aren’t as developed as video conferencing platforms |
Virtual booth RSI platforms | Mid-range cost Excellent RSI features Can work alongside the video conferencing platform of your choice No injection of original video and sound into the RSI platform Copyright and privacy issues are minimized Interpreters can be present in the original meeting | Cannot function as a standalone meeting platform No event management features Can be confusing for interpreters to have to mute their mics in both the original meeting and the virtual booth Often interpreters need at least two devices to be in the original meeting and the virtual booth |
In this section, we highlight a number of key trends and driving forces that stood out from our analysis and predict how these will shape the market for language services in the coming years.
For a couple of years now, we have been monitoring a trend we’ve been calling “the new LSP” in our Nimdzi 100 report (our analysis of the global market for all language services and ranking of the top 100 largest providers). And although this is not a new trend, it certainly is a continuous one that we see expressed in many different ways but with two core characteristics:
At the core of this trend lies the desire of LSPs to not just be an external vendor but rather an extension of their clients’ operations. In their effort to achieve this, LSPs become hyper customer-centric, adding adjacent services, and embedding themselves deeply into their clients’ internal structure to a point that makes them almost irreplaceable (or at least harder to cut ties with).
When we talk about this trend in the Nimdzi 100, most of what we identified is rather true for translation and localization companies. It, therefore, was interesting to find that based on briefings with interpreting companies for this report, it appears that the same trend is starting to emerge in the interpreting market.
When we talk about the “strategic partner” element in the Nimdzi 100, we identified a number of sub-categories in which we see this trend expressed:
Now let’s see how they apply to interpreting service providers.
In the area of meetings and events, as well as corporate communication, interpreting service providers have expressed that they want their clients to turn to them whenever they have a need to improve communication, whether that is internal or external, multilingual or monolingual. Rather than just being considered an interpreting service provider, companies want to be viewed as experts for anything related to communication, including increasing internal efficiencies at a business through more effective communication — a communications consultant, so-to-speak.
It is not uncommon for hospitals to have their own interpreting staff. However, in a medical environment, managing a team of interpreters might not always be the best use of time and resources for the client. So in some cases, hospitals fire their interpreters and then the same interpreters are hired back by the LSP and deployed in the same setting. In such a case, the client gets to keep the same staff but doesn’t have them on their own books anymore, saving the client time and money.
More often than not, the crucial part, where an LSP can come in and help a client (as well as win business) is not about providing language services (that one is a given). It rather is about solving other problems, for instance related to admin or IT. Challenges such as how to integrate with a hospital system that is highly regulated or solving billing problems. THAT is where LSPs can shine and truly emerge as the partner of choice because they saved their client a lot of headaches, unnecessary admin time, and ultimately cost.
Last but not least there is the rebranding element. “We don’t consider ourselves an LSP anymore…” is a phrase we hear a lot. As LSPs are diversifying their service offering, many are trying to come up with a name that better reflects their new reality and ultimately generates better leads. In the interpreting field we see this reflected, for instance, when RSI providers want to be seen as meeting and event platforms or interpreting service providers want to be considered communications partners (as mentioned above).
Why are LSPs choosing to rebrand? Mostly for differentiation and marketing purposes with the ultimate goal of attracting more customers by changing the conversation. That being said, the rebranding attempts are not exclusively based on marketing ideas but are, to a certain extent, a reflection of the diversification of services we are observing in the market.
Already in the 2021 edition of the Interpreting Index, we reported about a talent shortage in the interpreting market. While in the overall market for all language services this challenge has improved (see Nimdzi 100), it appears that in the interpreting industry it has intensified. In interviews for this report, as well as for the Nimdzi 100, without fail, all interpreting companies (of varying sizes) listed a shortage of interpreters as one of their key business challenges in 2023.
While true for both onsite and remote interpreting, the battle for talent seems to be particularly present for onsite assignments. LSPs of all sizes reported that ever since the pandemic and the increasing shift to remote interpreting, it has become harder to find enough interpreters to fill onsite assignments. One reason for this might be that as the pandemic hit, not all interpreters were willing to shift to remote assignments. Instead, some decided leave the profession altogether, in search of a more lucrative line of work. For many years complaints around low rates and poor working conditions have been making the rounds in interpreting circles and for some, the pandemic and move to remote was the last straw. Another reason may be the opposite side of the coin that is that certain interpreters flourished during the pandemic and now prefer remote assignments over onsite ones, due to the element of convenience of being able to work from home (or anywhere).
Adding to the talent challenge are sudden spikes in demand, e.g. when the war in Ukraine started and suddenly interpreters with Ukrainian where in high demand. Although these kinds of spikes have always existed, the present shortage of interpreters has made it even more challenging this time around.
One side-effect of this is that interpreter education is increasingly falling onto LSPs. Although, of course, professional schools for interpreters continue to exist, some LSPs criticized that what is taught in class is often too far removed from the realities of the market. This, paired with the general shortage, means that LSPs need to carry some of the training burden — which is time-consuming and costly.
To name an example, one LSP reported that when the war in Ukraine started, there were only 4-6 Ukrainian interpreters in the whole country. So, they took it upon themselves to train so called “language supporters” that are used as helpers when people first arrive in the country and need basic information and instructions. Although these people are not considered interpreters, they can bridge some of the gaps.
One major byproduct of the boom in virtual events caused by the pandemic was that there were more requests for multilingual meetings than ever before and in entirely new formats and compilations. What we have witnessed ever since is both the emergence of the Multilingual Meeting Provider (MMP) and the multi-skilled linguist.
The needs of clients are shifting and buyers are increasingly looking for a provider that can do it all. Clients don’t want to go to one company for their interpreting needs, to another for translation, and again to another for captioning — and potentially all for the same event.
Today, multilingual meetings can be facilitated in many different ways, including:
As the market for multilingual meetings is evolving it is perhaps not surprising that this field is no longer dominated by interpreting providers alone. Other players have appeared on the scene, including machine translation providers, pure tech players from outside the language services industry, media localization companies, video conferencing giants (Zoom, MS Teams, etc.), and LSPs who traditionally only focused on VRI and OPI services and are now looking to get into the events space by adding RSI. At the same time, RSI providers — the traditional players in this field — are expanding their offering to reach a wider client base by adding features such as MI and machine-generated live subtitling.
That being said, as the pandemic effect winds down, the novelty of interpreting systems and environments is also waning. Instead, what we are seeing is that the focus is increasingly shifting toward event management. In fact, we predict that over time, the different language services MMPs offer will simply become features on event platforms clients can avail of.
While this might be in early stages, first moves have been made. For instance, RSI technology provider KUDO no longer consider themselves an RSI platform, but rather a meeting platform. For good reason, because what KUDO and others in this space offer is no longer just about interpreting. And why would a company limit themselves to “just” providing interpreting (and other multilingual) services when they can add more value to their clients and more revenue to their business by focussing on event management at large, with language services solely being an option clients can select?
Event management is the MUCH larger market and sits at the core of any meeting, event, and conference. It is also a logical next step for RSI providers and MMPs since event management is already part of the package they offer to their clients. From the other side, the cross-over has already happened with the likes Zoom, MS Teams, and Webex — which originated in the pure meetings and events space — coming into the market for multilingual meetings by offering a number of language services, such as captioning, subtitling, transcription, summarization, and RSI.
It should come as no surprise that this trend has also trickled down to the linguists who are facilitating these meetings. The pandemic pushed many into offering a more diversified service portfolio as they sought to make ends meet. Today, many interpreters are increasingly moving into new terrain such as voiceovers, respeaking, captioning, technology consulting, and event management to stay relevant and offer a better service to their clients.
While in many cases, linguists simply upskill themselves, some LSPs are also actively facilitating the transition into new language services. For instance, media localization provider Iyuno has an open call on its website that allows anyone to record their voice and submit it to be considered for work as a voice actor. A clever move that speeds up the search for potential talent and offers a quicker in-road for those interested in going into this line of work.
As the multilingual meeting provider develops, we can expect that the multi-skilled linguist will be in high demand.
In the 2021 edition of the Interpreting Index, we already predicted that remote interpreting is here to stay and that even after the pandemic, the split between onsite and remote interpreting will not go back to the way it was prior to March 2020. For this year’s analysis, we wanted to see if this prediction actually panned out. The results now show that according to our latest research, our prediction largely holds up, with only minor variations. For instance, we estimate that the percentage of over-the-phone interpreting (OPI) decreased ever so slightly (by 2%) and was absorbed into video remote interpreting (VRI) and RSI instead.
More noticeably, for the first time, we have added the percentage of the market occupied by hybrid meetings into the graphic. In the September 2021 version, we already mentioned hybrid meetings and estimated that in the years to come they would occupy between 10% and 20% of the market. We can now confirm that this estimate is on track and currently stands at 12%. In our graphic, the percentage for hybrid meetings overlaps with both the percentages for onsite and RSI services, as hybrid meetings typically involve a mix of both. We can expect that the market share of hybrid meetings will continue to grow going forward.
It is worth stressing that this graph only takes into account human-facilitated interpreting and does not include the share of machine interpreting (MI). With the gain in MI, it will most likely be represented in the future market estimations. As it stands though, the MI percentage is still too low to be visualized here.
Overall, and just as we estimated two years ago, the interpreting landscape no longer resembles that of the pre-pandemic era.
The share of onsite interpreting is not the 80% it was, but is still a reasonable 51% (including the crossover of hybrid meetings). Remote interpreting is steadily gaining ground and we can expect this share of the market to continue to advance significantly, particularly in telehealth. However, we can note that a certain equilibrium has been achieved at this point in time in the remote versus onsite shares compared to the dramatic imbalance at the height of the pandemic.
DEI, which stands for diversity, equity and inclusion, is a topic that is increasingly being talked about in our industry and society at large. As awareness increases about the importance of creating equal access to all aspects of life for everyone, people are also realizing the central role language services play in facilitating DEI.
In the wider language services industry, examples of DEI services include (but are not limited to) closed captioning for people who are Deaf or hard of hearing and audio description (AD) for the blind and visually impaired. Both are services that, on the one hand, have existed for a long time but on the other hand are not necessarily as widely rolled out as needed to enable truly equal access. Especially AD is not available in all markets and even then, predominantly in English.
Narrowing it down to just the interpreting industry, we want to briefly explore the role that interpreting services play in the area of DEI.
Perhaps one of the most well-known areas in this regard is sign language interpreting. Although sign language interpreting is a well-established service, there are still many misconceptions about this field. For instance, the assumption that captions are just as good, which is typically based on the mistaken belief that signed languages are based on spoken languages — which is not the case. So although Deaf people in the US can typically read and write in English, it usually is not their first, but only their second language, with the first one being American Sign Langauge (ASL).
Which brings us to a broader point when it comes to DEI, namely that it is not only about providing equal access to people with disabilities but about enabling access for people who speak (or sign) ANY other language than the dominant one in the country (or region) they live in. This is where, interpreting services at large come in. Particularly in the business world, the assumption that “everyone speaks English” still holds strong, despite the fact that data show that only a little less than 20% of the world population speak English as a first or second language.
Although in many markets, people can already request interpreters in official settings, such as in court or in the hospital, there is a significant gap when it comes to enabling access in all areas of life. Ranging from education, to the workforce, to leisure time. The crucial change that needs to happen to make such a world become a reality is a shift in mindset. Namely, that DEI services are not something that HAS to be provided because the law says so and that comes with a price tag, but that is it something that holds opportunities for everyone. Same as global brands localizing their content to reach end-uses in their target markets, providing interpreting services can be what makes a company stand out and attract more business. After all, if you cannot communicate with your customers, how will they buy from you?
And these days companies have many opportunities to choose from in this regard. Whether you opt for traditional onsite interpreting, remote interpreting, machine interpreting, voice overs, or even respeaking (speech-to-text interpreting) — there is an option for every setting and budget.
On a positive note, interviews with LSPs from all areas of the market have revealed that requests for proposal (RFPs) from private as well as government clients, are increasingly including DEI clauses. A step in the right direction.
As AI is advancing at an accelerated pace, new solutions are slowly but surely entering our everyday lives — and interpreting is no exception. So let’s take a look at the most noteworthy developments from the area of AI for the interpreting space.
Machine interpreting (MI) is the transmission of a spoken message in one language into a spoken message in a different language using automatic speech recognition (ASR), followed by AI transcription, machine translation, and finally a synthetic voice to speak the message in the target language. This so-called cascade model is what all MI solutions on the market to date are built on.
Current solutions can best be divided into two sections: handheld devices, ear buds, and apps for individuals (e.g. tourists), and software designed for business purposes (e.g. adding more languages to large-scale events or dubbing corporate training videos at a lower price point).
Aside from what we reported on in previous publications (see here and here), there are three main developments worth highlighting when it comes to MI:
In both cases, the convergence can either happen in post-editing or live with an API (e.g. integrated into an interpreting platform). The current latency is between 0.5 and 1.0 seconds.
Another noteworthy development in this field comes from Meta AI. In June 2023 the company introduced Voicebox, a generative AI model for speech (though not publicly available yet). Voicebox predominantly functions as a text-to-speech generator for a variety of tasks, producing synthetic speech outputs in a variety of styles. The main difference between Voicebox and the model from Ericsson is that Ericsson uses audio files for its AI conversion tasks, whereas Voicebox predominantly works from text-based files. Naturally, both solutions use audio files for the voice cloning aspect but also here, there is a difference in that Ericsson uses the audio from already interpreted speeches plus the original speaker’s audio, whereas Voicebox uses translated text in combination with the original speaker’s audio. The results are similar, but the difference in input source could ultimately mean that different users will adopt the solutions depending on the use case (e.g. live conference vs generating audio and video files from purely text-based files).
CAI stands for computer assisted interpreting and refers to tools that facilitate the interpreter’s work, similar to the role of computer assisted translation (CAT) tools for translators. There are a few such solutions available, for example smarterp&me, INTERPRETBANK, and Cymo Note. Typically CAI tools are used by interpreters who are interpreting simultaneously in a remote environment, for example on an RSI platform, but Cymo Note can also be used to facilitate consecutive interpreting. The tools function via a mix of AI solutions (e.g. speech recognition, speech-to-text translation) and manual input from the interpreters in preparation for the assignment (e.g. a glossary with specific terminology).
The aim of CAI tools is to provide interpreters with real time translations and other suggestions like numbers and names that appear on a screen while they are interpreting. In the below image from the smarterp&me CAI tool, for example, the pop-up translations in the target language (Spanish) are divided into different categories — numbers, terms, and named entities. In addition, some CAI tools even want to include conversion of units that may differ between languages, such as miles to kilometers or fahrenheit to celsius, in their later versions.
Source: smarterp&me
With all of this potential, why aren’t CAI tools widely adopted by interpreters and interpreting technology providers alike? The main reason is that as it stands, CAI tools are still underdeveloped. They often come at a price for interpreters, yet the tools’ glossary customization capabilities tend to be limited, they don’t include effective automations for extracting terminology from relevant websites or documents, and it is time-consuming for interpreters to learn the ropes of a new tool. So for now, efficiency benefits are still limited.
To develop a CAI tool that holds the potential to be widely adopted, much still needs to be improved, which requires investment. And the question then becomes, who should fill that role? For whom would such an investment pay off? Interpreting technology providers may not see the direct financial benefits of investing in this type of software because it’s interpreter-oriented, not client-oriented. Interpreters are somewhat reluctant to create and improve glossaries that can be recycled by the machines. Academia is a bit slow off the mark and tends to lack the financial means to roll out effective technological solutions.
That being said, change is occurring — albeit slowly. Interpreting technology providers, in particular RSI platforms, are beginning to see the added value of having a more efficient interpreter workflow, and interpreters are increasingly adopting new technologies. After all, the possible benefits of CAI tools are considerable. For the interpreters, a good CAI tool can mean less preparation time and enhanced performance (benefitting the client as well). For RSI providers (as well as LSPs), having a well-functioning CAI tool available means being able to offer clients a wider pool of interpreters at a moment’s notice as even new interpreters on the roster can be brought up to speed quickly thanks to adapted glossaries and the assistance of a CAI tool during the assignment. In addition, CAI tools function as an interface that allows for client-interpreter exchange of documents, removing the need for an intermediary from the provider side, thus saving cost and further increasing efficiencies.
We do not have the answer as to who will invest in CAI tool development, but without it, it could easily become the type of technology that just never got off the shelf.
The interpreting industry has had a bumpy ride over the past few years. The COVID-19 pandemic posed an almost existential threat to the industry, which managed to pull-through and adapt to the changing times.
Although interpreting service providers struggled at the start of the pandemic, they bounced back and are recording faster growth than in the past. As a reminder, 25 of the 34 companies on our ranking recorded positive growth in 2021 and 2022. New players also came onto the scene, like RSI companies which are featuring on the ranking for the first time, their tech services now inextricably linked with the provision of interpreting services. Investment in OPI/VRI providers is paying off and a sign language interpreting provider has snapped up second place in the ranking — also a first.
Interpreting has essentially gone mainstream, receiving far more attention than ever before and occupying a more central role in the language services industry. Demand for interpreting services is booming, the technology is advancing rapidly, and interpreting as a vector for DEI is gaining traction.
So, the message is a mainly positive one — our industry is capable of adaptation and overcoming economic uncertainty, essentially re-inventing itself to come back stronger than before.