# EdCitation vs Mendeley and EndNote for a thesis or paper

**EdCitation or Mendeley and EndNote, which do I need for a thesis or a paper?** For a thesis or a paper you usually need both. Mendeley or EndNote keeps the library and the PDFs, shares them with co-authors and inserts citations as you write. EdCitation's Verify references checks the finished list against the publisher's record, every entry, retracted papers flagged, free with no account. EndNote flags retractions in its own library; Mendeley's pages do not mention them.

Published 2026-09-23, updated 2026-09-23 by EdCitation. https://edcitation.com/newsletter/edcitation-vs-mendeley-and-endnote

EdCitation publishes this comparison, and for most postgraduates and researchers the answer to EdCitation vs Mendeley or EndNote is both: a reference manager while the thesis or paper is written, EdCitation for the finished list. Every fact about Mendeley and EndNote was read on Elsevier's and Clarivate's own pages, checked on 23 September 2026, prices as the pages show them.

Where EdCitation is the best tool is the finished list. [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references) looks every entry in a pasted list or an uploaded manuscript up in the publisher's record, flags retracted papers, never shows "could not check" as "not found", and with the paper uploaded matches every in-text citation to the list, free with no account. Neither manager's pages describe testing a finished list against the record: EndNote's help guide describes a Retractions group that "works with Retraction Watch" for the articles already in a library (Clarivate, n.d.-e), and the Mendeley pages we read do not mention retractions (Elsevier, n.d.-a, n.d.-b, n.d.-c, n.d.-d, n.d.-e, n.d.-f, n.d.-g). Everything before that is the managers' job, and EdCitation does none of it.

## What does each tool do for a thesis or a paper?

Mendeley and EndNote keep and cite your sources; EdCitation checks the list they produce. Every cell is from the product's own pages; [the best citation tool in 2026, by job](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/best-citation-tools-2026) covers twelve tools the same way.

| Job | Mendeley | EndNote 2025 | EdCitation |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| A library with PDFs and annotations | Yes, 2 GB free | Yes, "unlimited storage" | No |
| Citations inserted as you write | Mendeley Cite: Office 365, Word 2016 and later, Word for iPad | Cite While You Write: Word, Google Docs, Word Online | No |
| Shared with co-authors | Private groups for "small teams" | "up to 1,000 people" | Lists shared with colleagues, free account |
| Retraction warning | Not mentioned | Retractions group; alerts "as you write" | Every entry cited or verified |
| Finished list tested against the record | No | No; Find Reference Updates fills fields | Yes: verified, "check this" or not found |
| Price | Free; paid storage from $4.99 a month | $206 as shown; student $113 | Free; Pro $8 a month |

## Where is EdCitation the better tool?

For the finished list and the manuscript's last read before submission, EdCitation is the best tool, because it looks a reference up in the publisher's record and never writes one. A manager formats what it holds; it does not test whether what it holds exists.

### The finished list, every entry

Paste the list, or upload the paper, into [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references). It looks every entry up by DOI, or failing that by title, year and first author, and returns one of three verdicts: verified, doubtful (shown as "check this") or not found. Retracted papers are flagged against the Retraction Watch database whether or not the entry is otherwise correct, and a lookup an index did not answer is reported as "could not check" rather than "not found". Upload the whole paper and it also matches each in-text citation to its entry and each entry back to the text. There is no model in the loop, no account and no charge. [References from a file](https://edcitation.com/tools/references-from-a-file), part of Pro at $8 a month, does the same in the dashboard, shows on the next run what was fixed, and recommends published sources for a reference that cannot stand.

### The manuscript and the brief

[Mechanics QA](https://edcitation.com/tools/mechanics-qa), also Pro, checks the whole manuscript's formatting against the style (its page names the APA 7 student paper), what was left in the file (comments, tracked changes, placeholders), citations against the list, numbers and language. [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check), free, reads a thesis handbook or a journal's instructions into a checklist; Theoretics QA, part of Max at $24 a month, judges the paper against them and never rewrites a word. What these tools do is taken from their own pages, and EdCitation is new, so this article claims no track record for it.

## What do Mendeley's and EndNote's pages say about retractions and whether a reference exists?

EndNote's pages describe a retraction check on the library; Mendeley's do not mention one; neither describes a check that a reference exists.

### Mendeley

We read Mendeley's home, Reference Manager, Mendeley Cite, Web Importer and pricing pages and three of its guides. The Web Importer page says it "automatically retrieves accurate metadata from over 90 million records" (Elsevier, n.d.-f). The guide on adding references says that for a dropped PDF "Mendeley will automatically extract the metadata from the PDF(s)" and that a library imports in "BibTeX, EndNote XML or RIS". No page mentions a retraction or describes checking that an entry exists; a reference typed by hand, or pasted from a chatbot, is stored as typed. [How to check whether a reference is real](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/how-to-check-a-reference-is-real) is the check by hand.

### EndNote

EndNote's home page promises "retraction alerts as you write". Its EndNote 2025 help guide says the Retractions group "displays articles in the library which have been retracted" and "works with Retraction Watch to check for new retractions" (Clarivate, n.d.-e). The page does not say which identifiers it uses or whether a signed-in account is needed; university library guides say a DOI or PubMed ID and a synced library, which we could not confirm on Clarivate's pages. The check is of the library's items, not of a pasted list or a finished manuscript.

The nearest EndNote comes to checking a reference against the record is Find Reference Updates, which its help page says retrieves fields from "source databases outside EndNote such as Web of Science Core Collection and PubMed" and "is designed for journal articles". When nothing matches, "a message that all references are up to date is displayed": it fills gaps, and does not report that a reference was not found. [Retracted papers in your reference list](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/retracted-papers-in-your-reference-list) explains what to do when a check turns one up.

## Where are Mendeley and EndNote the better tools?

For everything before the list is finished, a reference manager is the better tool, and for most of these jobs EdCitation is not a tool at all.

### The library, the PDFs and the co-authors

Mendeley's Reference Manager page describes a library grown by dropping in PDFs or folders, a watched folder, a Web Importer for Chrome, Firefox, Safari and Edge, and reading with highlights and annotations, with "2GB of storage" free (Elsevier, n.d.-d, n.d.-f). Its sharing guide describes private groups for "small teams", by invitation, sharing PDFs and annotations; member limits are not on the pages we could read. EndNote's pages describe "One-Click Capture", full text found "in one click", "Detect and remove duplicates", sharing "with up to 1,000 people", and EndNote Web, "fully integrated with the desktop app" (Clarivate, n.d.-b, n.d.-c). EdCitation keeps no PDFs, has no group library and inserts nothing into a document.

### Citing as you write, and the styles

Mendeley Cite works in "Microsoft Office 365, Microsoft Word versions 2016 and above" and Word for iPad, without Mendeley Desktop installed; its page does not mention Google Docs. EndNote's Cite While You Write covers Word, Google Docs and Word Online. Both insert the citation, build the bibliography and renumber when a paragraph moves, which is the reason to use one on a 300-reference thesis. On styles, Clarivate's own pages disagree: the home page says "over 7,000 citation styles", the version comparison "7,500+", and the styles download page "more than 6,000" while its list shows 7,611 results. Any of those is a thousand times EdCitation's six; Mendeley's pages give no count.

## What does each cost?

EndNote is a one-time licence, Mendeley is free with paid storage, and EdCitation's checks are free or $8 a month. Prices as shown on 23 September 2026.

| Product | Price as shown | Kind |
| --- | --- | --- |
| EndNote 2025, full licence | $275 struck through, $206 | One-time; "Includes tax" |
| EndNote 2025, student | $150 struck through, $113 | One-time; proof of enrolment |
| EndNote 2025, upgrade from 21 or earlier | $125 struck through, $94 | One-time |
| Mendeley, free plan | $0, 2 GB | Free |
| EdCitation Find, Cite, Verify, Check your paper | $0, no account | Free |
| EdCitation Pro | $8 a month, or $72 a year | Subscription |

The buy page does not explain the two figures beside each licence, so both are given. Against Pro at $8 a month or $72 a year, EndNote's $206 buys a different thing: a licence for a library and a plug-in. Pro buys the check the licence does not include; the free tools give that check for one list with no account. Mendeley's paid tiers, $4.99 to $14.99 a month, buy storage and AI reading tools, not checking. The [pricing page](https://edcitation.com/pricing) has EdCitation's plans in full.

## What does the published evidence say about Mendeley and EndNote?

The peer-reviewed tests find formatting mistakes from both managers and missed full texts from EndNote; none tests whether a reference exists, because neither product claims to.

### Formatting against journals' instructions

Kratochvíl (2017) built the same 17 references, to articles, books, chapters and a web page, in EndNote X7.4, Mendeley 1.15.2, RefWorks 4.4 and Zotero 4.0, between December 2015 and January 2016, for 15 medical journals and the NLM style, and compared 1,084 generated references with references written by hand. No manager formatted every reference correctly for any journal. Zotero made 575 mistakes, Mendeley 679, EndNote 882 and RefWorks 937. Online sources were the weak point: EndNote left the URL out of 120 of its 135 references to online resources and the date of access out of 63; Mendeley left out 56 URLs and 61 dates; Zotero 34 of each. Some mistakes were the style file's, not the program's: all four dropped the URL for one journal and produced it for the NLM style from the same record. Every version tested has since been replaced.

### Finding the full text

Fulbright and Evans (2024) tested EndNote 20 and Zotero 6 at fetching full texts for 1,000 records at the University of York. EndNote found 47% of the available full texts and Zotero 52%, Zotero was faster by 2 minutes 15 seconds, and 99% of what each retrieved was the right paper. Mendeley was not tested.

### The list itself

Logan et al. (2024) reviewed 105 studies of reference accuracy in peer-reviewed journals and found an overall error rate of 32.7%, author names the most common error. It does not say which lists came from a manager; it is evidence that the finished list needs a check of its own. [How to check your references before journal submission](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/reference-accuracy-before-journal-submission) sets out the checklist.

## How do I use a reference manager and EdCitation together?

Build the library in the manager, cite from it, and run the finished manuscript through Verify references before a supervisor, a co-author or an editor reads it.

1. **Save each source into the manager the day you decide to use it**, from the publisher's page or by DOI.
2. **Look at the record on the day you save it.** Metadata extracted from a PDF is a guess; corrected once, it is right in every chapter after.
3. **Cite from the add-in**, with one style file per target journal. An EndNote retraction alert is a reason to stop and read the notice.
4. **Before submission, upload the finished manuscript to [Verify references](https://edcitation.com/verify-references)**, or to References from a file with Pro. Rebuild any entry that reads "check this" with [Cite a source](https://edcitation.com/cite) and replace any that is not found.
5. **Run Mechanics QA on the same file** for the formatting and for the comments and tracked changes a shared document collects.
6. **Check the brief** with [Check your paper](https://edcitation.com/check): the thesis handbook or the journal's instructions, read into a checklist.

EndNote catches a retraction among the items it holds; Verify references catches the entry that was typed, pasted or copied, and the citation that never reached the list. [EdCitation vs Zotero and ZoteroBib](https://edcitation.com/newsletter/edcitation-vs-zotero-and-zoterobib) is the same workflow with the free manager.

## Quick questions

### Does Mendeley check for retracted papers?

Not on any page we read on 23 September 2026: Mendeley's home, Reference Manager, Mendeley Cite, Web Importer and pricing pages and its guides do not mention retractions. EdCitation's Verify references flags a retracted paper in any list, free.

### Does EndNote check that my references are real?

No. EndNote 2025 flags retracted articles in a library through its Retractions group, using Retraction Watch, and Find Reference Updates fills a journal article's fields from Web of Science and PubMed; when nothing matches, its help page says a message that all references are up to date is displayed. Neither reports that a reference does not exist.

### How much does EndNote cost compared with EdCitation Pro?

On 23 September 2026 EndNote's store showed a full licence at $275 struck through and $206, a student licence at $150 and $113, and an upgrade at $125 and $94, each one-time. EdCitation Pro is $8 a month or $72 a year, and the free tools need no account.

### Which is better for a thesis, Mendeley or EndNote?

Whichever your library supports and your co-authors use. From their own pages, Mendeley is free and cites in Word; EndNote costs $206 as shown, cites in Word and Google Docs, shares with up to 1,000 people and flags retractions. In Kratochvíl (2017), Mendeley's 2016 version made fewer formatting mistakes than EndNote's. Neither checks a finished list.

## References

- Clarivate. (n.d.-a). *Buy EndNote*. EndNote. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://endnote.com/buy](https://endnote.com/buy)
- Clarivate. (n.d.-b). *Compare previous versions*. EndNote. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://endnote.com/product-details/compare-previous-versions](https://endnote.com/product-details/compare-previous-versions)
- Clarivate. (n.d.-c). *EndNote: The best citation & reference management tool*. EndNote. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://endnote.com/](https://endnote.com/)
- Clarivate. (n.d.-d). *Find reference updates*. EndNote 2025 user help guide for macOS. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://docs.endnote.com/docs/endnote/2025/v1/macos/en/content/03editref/find_reference_updates.htm](https://docs.endnote.com/docs/endnote/2025/v1/macos/en/content/03editref/find_reference_updates.htm)
- Clarivate. (n.d.-e). *The groups, group sets, and tags panel*. EndNote 2025 user help guide for macOS. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://docs.endnote.com/docs/endnote/2025/macos/v1/content/05groups_and_tags/the_groups_panel.htm](https://docs.endnote.com/docs/endnote/2025/macos/v1/content/05groups_and_tags/the_groups_panel.htm)
- Clarivate. (n.d.-f). *Output styles*. EndNote. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://endnote.com/downloads/styles/](https://endnote.com/downloads/styles/)
- Elsevier. (n.d.-a). *02. Adding references*. Mendeley. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://www.mendeley.com/guides/mendeley-reference-manager/02-adding-references](https://www.mendeley.com/guides/mendeley-reference-manager/02-adding-references)
- Elsevier. (n.d.-b). *09. Sharing references*. Mendeley. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://www.mendeley.com/guides/mendeley-reference-manager/09-sharing-references](https://www.mendeley.com/guides/mendeley-reference-manager/09-sharing-references)
- Elsevier. (n.d.-c). *Mendeley Cite*. Mendeley. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://www.mendeley.com/reference-management/mendeley-cite](https://www.mendeley.com/reference-management/mendeley-cite)
- Elsevier. (n.d.-d). *Mendeley: Features*. Mendeley. Retrieved 27 September 2026, from [https://www.mendeley.com/features/](https://www.mendeley.com/features/)
- Elsevier. (n.d.-e). *Mendeley: The free all-in-one reference manager*. Mendeley. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://www.mendeley.com/](https://www.mendeley.com/)
- Elsevier. (n.d.-f). *Mendeley Web Importer*. Mendeley. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://www.mendeley.com/reference-management/web-importer](https://www.mendeley.com/reference-management/web-importer)
- Elsevier. (n.d.-g). *Pricing*. Mendeley. Retrieved 23 September 2026, from [https://www.mendeley.com/pricing](https://www.mendeley.com/pricing)
- 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)
- Kratochvíl, J. (2017). Comparison of the accuracy of bibliographical references generated for medical citation styles by EndNote, Mendeley, RefWorks and Zotero. *The Journal of Academic Librarianship*, *43*(1), 57–66. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.09.001](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acalib.2016.09.001)
- Logan, S. W., Hussong-Christian, U., Case, L., & Noregaard, S. (2024). Reference accuracy of primary studies published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals: A scoping review. *Journal of Librarianship and Information Science*, *56*(4), 896–949. [https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006231177715](https://doi.org/10.1177/09610006231177715)