# EdCitation vs Citation Machine and EasyBib, which should you use?

**EdCitation or Citation Machine and EasyBib, which should I use?** Use EdCitation's Cite a source for a reference from a DOI, PubMed ID or ISBN, built from the publisher's record and screened for retraction, and its Verify references to check a finished list, both free with no ads and no account. Use Citation Machine or EasyBib for one of thousands of styles, a grammar check or a paraphrasing tool.

Published 2026-09-23, updated 2026-09-23 by EdCitation. https://edcitation.com/newsletter/edcitation-vs-citation-machine-and-easybib

EdCitation publishes this comparison and makes one of the tools in it. The short answer to EdCitation vs Citation Machine and EasyBib is that the jobs differ. Where the reference has to come from the publisher's record, be screened for retraction, or be checked as real once the list is finished, EdCitation is the better tool. Where the assignment wants one of thousands of styles, a grammar check or a paraphrasing tool, the two Chegg services are, and they share one flow: search, review screen, form, list. Every fact about them below was read on their own pages, checked on 23 September 2026.

The record is where EdCitation is the best tool. Its [Cite a source](https://edcitation.com/cite) starts from a DOI, a title, a PubMed ID or an ISBN, takes the reference from what the publisher deposited and screens it for retraction. Its [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references) does the same lookup for a whole pasted list or uploaded paper, flags what was retracted, keeps "could not check" apart from "not found" and ties each in-text citation to its entry. Neither costs anything, asks for an account or puts an advertisement inside a result. None of the Citation Machine or EasyBib pages we read describes a check that a reference exists or carries an accuracy statement (Chegg, n.d.-a, n.d.-b, n.d.-c, n.d.-d, n.d.-e, n.d.-f, n.d.-g, n.d.-h, n.d.-i, n.d.-j, n.d.-k, n.d.-l). In EdCitation's test on 23 September 2026, Citation Machine found nothing for a PubMed ID and listed a paper *The Lancet* retracted in 2010 without a warning of its own, with "Sponsored" links on its review screen.

What they do that EdCitation does not is just as plain: thousands of styles to our six, a grammar check, a paraphrasing tool, an export to Google Drive, and with the paid plan a proofread by a person.

## What does each tool do?

Citation Machine and EasyBib build a bibliography and check the writing around it; EdCitation builds a reference from the record and checks the finished list. The two Chegg tools share a column: their pages describe the same tools.

| Job | Citation Machine and EasyBib | EdCitation |
| --- | --- | --- |
| A reference from an identifier | Journal by title or DOI; nothing for a PubMed ID in our test | From DOI, title, PubMed ID or ISBN, with a retraction screen |
| A web page | Search by URL, pick from results | Paste the address |
| A finished list checked | Nothing on their pages | Each entry looked up; verified, "check this" or not found |
| Retractions | Nothing of its own in our test | Flagged against Retraction Watch |
| Styles | "thousands"; MLA, APA, Chicago and Harvard named | Six, done from the record |
| Writing checks | Free grammar checks, paraphrasing; plagiarism scan listed with Plus | Mechanics QA and Check plagiarism, with Pro |
| Taking the list out | "Export all"; EasyBib to Google Drive or Word | Copy with italics; Word, BibTeX or RIS file |
| Cost | Free with ads and no account; Plus after a three-day trial, price not shown before sign-up | Free with no account; Pro $8 a month |

## Where is EdCitation the better tool?

EdCitation is the best tool for the reference before it is cited and for the list after it is finished, for one reason: it looks the reference up and never writes it, and admits when it could not look.

### The reference, from the record, screened for retraction

Paste a DOI, a title, a PubMed ID or an ISBN into [Cite a source](https://edcitation.com/cite) and the reference comes out of the publisher's record in APA 7, MLA 9, Chicago 18 author-date, Harvard, IEEE or Vancouver, checked against the Retraction Watch database before it is cited. It costs nothing and needs no account; [APA 7](https://edcitation.com/cite/apa) has a page of its own. We did not run it in this session.

### The finished list, every entry looked up

Give [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references) the pasted list or the uploaded paper and it looks each entry up, by DOI where there is one and otherwise by title, year and first author, then reports it verified, doubtful (shown as "check this") or not found. A retracted paper is flagged however correct its entry; a lookup no index answered comes back as "could not check" and never as "not found". When the whole paper is uploaded, the in-text citations are matched to the entries and the entries back to the text. The Chegg pages describe building, editing and exporting citations, never looking an entry up to see whether it exists. [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check), also free, turns an assignment's instructions into a checklist, a job the Chegg writing assistant does not do. EdCitation never writes any part of a paper.

## Where are Citation Machine and EasyBib the better tools?

For a style we do not offer, a grammar check and a paraphrasing tool, Citation Machine and EasyBib are the better tools.

### Thousands of styles, a grammar check and a plagiarism scan

Both home pages promise citations in "thousands of styles", naming MLA, APA, Chicago and Harvard, "free grammar checks", a paraphrasing tool, and a plagiarism checker that compares writing "against billions of sources" (Chegg, n.d.-c, n.d.-g). The Plus box on their style pages lists "No ads", "MLA and APA citation styles + 7,000 more", plagiarism scanning and a check for "400+ advanced grammar errors". No page we read says a plagiarism scan is free. EdCitation offers six styles, no grammar checker and no paraphrasing tool; its [Check plagiarism](https://edcitation.com/tools/check-plagiarism) runs in the dashboard with Pro.

### Google Drive, and a proofread by a person

EasyBib's home page says a bibliography can be exported to Google Drive or Microsoft Word, and Citation Machine's list page has "Copy all" and "Export all" buttons. EdCitation's list copies with its italics and hanging indent and downloads as a Word file, BibTeX or RIS, as the tool says; Google Drive is theirs alone. Both terms pages say a subscription includes "up to 30 Expert Checks per billing period" on papers of 10,000 words or less (Chegg, n.d.-k, n.d.-l), and EasyBib's guides page lists "Expert Check Proofreading" beside its grammar and plagiarism checks. EdCitation has no proofreading service.

## Are Citation Machine and EasyBib free, and do they need an account?

The citation generators are free, with advertising and no account; the price of Plus was not shown on any page we could read without signing up. Both style pages say "Free 3-day trial. Cancel anytime", and Citation Machine's website page says "All of our writing tools, none of the ads" (Chegg, n.d.-a, n.d.-e, n.d.-f). Both terms pages say that a person who does not cancel within the trial "will automatically be enrolled in a paid monthly subscription", which "renews automatically on a rolling monthly basis", and that "To the extent permitted by law, subscription fees are not refundable".

Citation Machine's Upgrade link went to a Chegg sign-up page, "Sign Up to continue to Citation Machine", before any plan or figure, and EasyBib's answered with a press-and-hold check that we did not pass.

No account is needed to cite: Citation Machine's list page still held the entries from our earlier test that day, without a sign-in. EdCitation's free tools need no account, and the list is kept in the browser only, as the tool says; a free account keeps what you cite. Pro costs $8 a month and Max $24; paying a year at once saves 25%, as the [pricing page](https://edcitation.com/pricing) shows. Its sponsored cards are labelled and never sit inside a result, as the [partners page](https://edcitation.com/partners) says.

## What did Citation Machine produce for a DOI, a PubMed ID and a retracted paper?

In EdCitation's test on 23 September 2026, Citation Machine built a near-correct APA 7 entry from one DOI, found nothing for a PubMed ID, and listed a retracted paper with no warning of its own. [Best free APA citation generators in 2026](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/best-free-apa-citation-generators-2026) ran it on another DOI, an ISBN and a web page the same day. EasyBib's generator met the same press-and-hold check as its upgrade page, so it is described from its pages. The three identifiers were searched on its journal page, without an account, in APA 7.

### The DOI

For 10.5195/jmla.2024.1880, the search returned one result. The review screen, headed "Here's what we found", listed journal, date and title; the form behind it held both authors, volume, issue, pages and DOI. The entry read:

Fulbright, H., & Evans, C. (2024). Finding full texts in bulk: A comparison of Endnote 20 versus Zotero 6 using the University of York's subscriptions. *Journal of the Medical Library Association*, *112*(3), 214–224. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1880

Crossref's record gives the same authors, volume, issue and pages, and the paper's own title spells the product EndNote (Fulbright & Evans, 2024). Sentence-casing the title lower-cased the capital inside that name, the slip the generators guide recorded on "chatgpt"; everything else is right.

### The PubMed ID

For 39119157, the PubMed ID of Scheinfeld and Chung (2024), the page answered "Hmm we didn't find anything" and "Try searching by title or DOI". The search box asks for a title or a DOI and no page claims to take a PubMed ID, so the miss is a limit of scope rather than a fault; Cite a source takes one directly.

### The retracted paper

For 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0, the search returned one result, its title beginning "RETRACTED:", credited to "Wakefield et al. - The Lancet - 1998". The form listed all thirteen authors, and the entry read:

Wakefield, A., Murch, S., Anthony, A., Linnell, J., Casson, D., Malik, M., Berelowitz, M., Dhillon, A., Thomson, M., Harvey, P., Valentine, A., Davies, S., & Walker-Smith, J. (1998). Retracted: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and Pervasive Developmental Disorder in children. *The Lancet*, *351*(9103), 637–641. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(97)11096-0

Three things are wrong. The retraction is on the record three times over: a Crossref notice dated 6 February 2010 (Crossref, n.d.), a PubMed type of "Retracted Publication" on record 9500320 (National Library of Medicine, n.d.) and the journal's own withdrawal (The Editors of The Lancet, 2010). Citation Machine showed none of it; the word Retracted stands in its entry only because the publisher wrote it into the title. The middle initials in the record, A. J. for Wakefield among them, were dropped, and "Pervasive Developmental Disorder" gained capitals that neither the record nor the APA rule gives it. Had the publisher not renamed the paper, this entry would, on this evidence, carry no sign at all. Verify references raises the flag whatever the entry looks like, as [retracted papers in your reference list](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/retracted-papers-in-your-reference-list) explains.

## Which edition of each style do they use?

Citation Machine's pages say APA 7 and MLA 9; EasyBib's pages disagree with each other about MLA and Chicago. Citation Machine's MLA page says it "uses the 9th ed. of MLA", its APA page covers the seventh edition, and its Chicago page shows notes and bibliography from the 17th edition (Chegg, n.d.-a, n.d.-b, n.d.-i). EasyBib's MLA page says "We cite according to the 9th edition of MLA, 7th edition of APA, and 16th edition of Chicago", and the footer of its guides page says the 8th edition of MLA and the 17th of Chicago. EdCitation offers Chicago 18 author-date only and no notes and bibliography style, a gap of ours, as [APA vs MLA vs Chicago](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/apa-vs-mla-vs-chicago-which-citation-style) sets out.

## How do I use Citation Machine or EasyBib with EdCitation?

Keep the list in the Chegg tool if its styles or exports are what the assignment needs, and check every reference against the record before anyone else reads the paper.

1. **Build the list as you read**, by DOI or by URL, and compare each entry with the source itself, since neither tool claims to have done so.
2. **Turn to [Cite a source](https://edcitation.com/cite) for anything you hold only as a PubMed ID**, and add that entry by hand.
3. **Copy or export the list once the paper is done**; without an account it lives in the browser.
4. **Upload the finished paper to [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references) before submission.** Rebuild whatever reads "check this", replace whatever is not found, and act on any retraction flag.
5. **Check the brief** with [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check).

## Quick questions

### Is Citation Machine accurate?

For a journal article with a DOI, it built an APA 7 entry in EdCitation's test on 23 September 2026 with one slip, a lower-cased capital inside a product name. In the same test it dropped the middle initials of a retracted paper's authors; on other sources the same day it left a book entry blank and took a web page's title from the browser tab.

### Does EasyBib check that a reference is real?

No. EasyBib's pages describe citations built, formatted and exported, plus a grammar check and a plagiarism scan; none describes looking an entry up to see whether it exists. EdCitation's Verify references does that, at no cost and with no account.

### Does Citation Machine warn about retracted papers?

Not in our test. The 1998 Wakefield paper, withdrawn by The Lancet in 2010, came back as an ordinary entry; only the publisher's own "Retracted:" in the title gave it away. EdCitation screens every published work against the Retraction Watch database.

### Is EasyBib free?

The citation generator is, with advertising and no account needed. Plus removes the ads after a three-day trial that becomes a monthly subscription unless cancelled; its price is not on any page we could read without signing up.

### Who owns Citation Machine and EasyBib?

Chegg. Each site's logo reads "a Chegg service", and both footers carry a Chegg Inc. copyright line.

## References

- Chegg. (n.d.-a). *Citation Machine: APA format & APA citation generator*. Citation Machine. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://www.citationmachine.net/apa](https://www.citationmachine.net/apa)
- Chegg. (n.d.-b). *Citation Machine: Chicago format & Chicago citation generator*. Citation Machine. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://www.citationmachine.net/chicago](https://www.citationmachine.net/chicago)
- Chegg. (n.d.-c). *Citation Machine: Format & generate - APA, MLA, & Chicago*. Citation Machine. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://www.citationmachine.net/](https://www.citationmachine.net/)
- Chegg. (n.d.-d). *Citing a journal in APA*. Citation Machine. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://www.citationmachine.net/apa/cite-a-journal](https://www.citationmachine.net/apa/cite-a-journal)
- Chegg. (n.d.-e). *Citing a website in APA*. Citation Machine. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://www.citationmachine.net/apa/cite-a-website](https://www.citationmachine.net/apa/cite-a-website)
- Chegg. (n.d.-f). *EasyBib: Free APA citation & bibliography generator*. EasyBib. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://www.easybib.com/apa/source](https://www.easybib.com/apa/source)
- Chegg. (n.d.-g). *EasyBib: Free bibliography generator - MLA, APA, Chicago citation styles*. EasyBib. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://www.easybib.com/](https://www.easybib.com/)
- Chegg. (n.d.-h). *EasyBib: Free MLA citation & bibliography generator*. EasyBib. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://www.easybib.com/mla/source](https://www.easybib.com/mla/source)
- Chegg. (n.d.-i). *Free MLA citation generator and format*. Citation Machine. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://www.citationmachine.net/mla](https://www.citationmachine.net/mla)
- Chegg. (n.d.-j). *Guides*. EasyBib. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://www.easybib.com/guides/](https://www.easybib.com/guides/)
- Chegg. (n.d.-k). *Terms and conditions*. Citation Machine. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://www.citationmachine.net/terms-and-conditions](https://www.citationmachine.net/terms-and-conditions)
- Chegg. (n.d.-l). *Terms and conditions*. EasyBib. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://www.easybib.com/terms-and-conditions](https://www.easybib.com/terms-and-conditions)
- Crossref. (n.d.). *Metadata record for 10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0*. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0](https://api.crossref.org/works/10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0)
- The Editors of The Lancet. (2010). Retraction: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. *The Lancet*, *375*(9713), 445. [https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-4](https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60175-4)
- Fulbright, H., & Evans, C. (2024). Finding full texts in bulk: A comparison of EndNote 20 versus Zotero 6 using the University of York's subscriptions. *Journal of the Medical Library Association*, *112*(3), 214–224. [https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1880](https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1880)
- National Library of Medicine. (n.d.). *Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children* (PMID 9500320). PubMed. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9500320/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9500320/)
- Scheinfeld, L., & Chung, S. (2024). MEDLINE citation tool accuracy: An analysis in two platforms. *Journal of the Medical Library Association*, *112*(2), 133–139. [https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1718](https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2024.1718)