Compared to vs. Compared with: Meanings and Examples

Compared to and compared with both introduce comparisons. The distinction in this guide follows the MLA style convention: use compare to for an analogy that highlights a likeness between otherwise different things, and use compare with to evaluate similarities and differences.^[1] Naming that convention matters because the choice is an editorial method, not a reason to invent differences that the sentence does not express.

What Do Compared to and Compared with Mean?

Under the MLA convention, compared to introduces an analogy, while compared with introduces an evaluation. The first selects a point of resemblance. The second places two subjects beside each other so their shared and contrasting features can be examined.^[1]

Intended job	Phrase under the MLA convention	Original example	What the sentence does
Highlight one likeness	compared to	The lantern was compared to a small moon.	It likens the lantern’s glow or shape to the moon.
Evaluate related subjects	compared with	The new lantern was compared with the earlier model.	It invites assessment of features such as weight, brightness, or battery life.
Create an image	compared to	Her signature was compared to a breaking wave.	It uses one visual resemblance to describe the signature.
Examine results	compared with	June’s results were compared with May’s results.	It sets two result periods beside each other for analysis.

The verb form changes without changing the editorial distinction:

• Active analogy: “The reviewer compared the crowded station to a beehive.”
• Passive analogy: “The crowded station was compared to a beehive.”
• Active evaluation: “The reviewer compared the morning service with the evening service.”
• Passive evaluation: “The morning service was compared with the evening service.”

In each active sentence, the subject performs the comparison. In each passive sentence, the subject receives it. The preposition still signals the comparison job selected by the writer.

An analogy does not require poetic language. “The backup process can be compared to making a spare key” uses an everyday likeness to explain a process. An evaluation does not require statistics. “Compared with the first draft, the revision has a clearer opening” evaluates two drafts through one stated feature.

The deciding question is therefore not whether the nouns belong to a particular category. Ask what the writer is doing with them. A sentence may compare two related objects to highlight one resemblance, or evaluate very different systems across defined criteria. State the intended job and then apply the named convention consistently.

How Do Compared to and Compared with Differ?

Compared to focuses the reader on a likeness; compared with frames a side-by-side assessment. The MLA source illustrates compare with through an evaluation of finch species and compare to through an analogy between a signature and ocean swell.^[1]

Consider one subject written two ways:

• “The city’s transit map was compared to a spiderweb.” This analogy highlights an interlaced visual pattern.
• “The city’s transit map was compared with the regional rail map.” This evaluation invites the reader to inspect coverage, labels, connections, or another stated criterion.

The nouns alone do not supply the full meaning. The rest of the sentence should reveal the comparison’s purpose. “The analyst compared Plan A with Plan B” announces an evaluation but does not say which features were assessed. A stronger version names them: “The analyst compared Plan A with Plan B for cost, delivery time, and staffing.”

An analogy also benefits from an explicit point of likeness:

• Vague: “The mentor compared the schedule to a puzzle.”
• Clearer: “The mentor compared the schedule to a puzzle because every task had to fit into a limited space.”

The added clause explains why the analogy works. It does not turn the sentence into a factual claim about every schedule; it completes this original teaching example.

Parallel pairs make the contrast visible:

1. “The cloud was compared to a feather because of its shape.” The comparison selects one likeness. “The morning cloud cover was compared with the evening cloud cover.” The comparison evaluates two observations.
2. “The archive was compared to a maze because visitors struggled to find an exit.” The comparison creates an explanatory image. “The digital archive was compared with the paper archive for search speed.” The comparison applies a criterion.
3. “Her explanation was compared to a map that guided beginners.” The comparison uses analogy. “Her explanation was compared with the editor’s explanation for completeness.” The comparison uses evaluation.

Avoid calling a sentence wrong solely because it contains the other preposition. First decide which editorial job the sentence is meant to perform. If a publication adopts the MLA distinction, revise the phrase and the surrounding details together so the intended analogy or evaluation becomes explicit.

When Should You Choose Between Compared to and Compared with?

Choose by naming the comparison job: one highlighted likeness takes compared to, while an evaluation of similarities and differences takes compared with under the MLA convention. When a short sentence does not reveal its job, add context instead of guessing.

Use this sequence:

1. Identify the two subjects being compared.
2. Ask whether the sentence creates an analogy or conducts an evaluation.
3. For an analogy, state the relevant likeness and choose compared to.
4. For an evaluation, state at least one criterion and choose compared with.
5. When both readings remain possible, accept both or rewrite the sentence to make one reading clear.

Complete each item according to the stated MLA convention. Use to, with, or either, then check the key.

1. The writer likens the moonlit lake to polished glass: “The lake was compared ___ a mirror.”
2. Engineers evaluate two bridge designs for cost and load capacity: “Design A was compared ___ Design B.”
3. A teacher uses an analogy between a cell and a factory: “The cell was compared ___ a factory.”
4. Reviewers assess this year’s application process against last year’s process: “The current process was compared ___ the previous one.”
5. The sentence gives no purpose or criterion: “The red cover was compared ___ the blue cover.”
6. An editor highlights how the branches resemble outstretched hands: “The branches were compared ___ hands.”
7. A buyer measures two printers for speed, cost, and noise: “The printers were compared ___ each other.”
8. Rewrite “The two schedules were compared” so it clearly describes an evaluation under the convention.

Answer key

1. to — The mirror supplies an analogy based on appearance.
2. with — Cost and load capacity establish an evaluation.
3. to — The factory is an explanatory analogy for the cell.
4. with — The sentence evaluates corresponding processes from two periods.
5. either — The sentence does not reveal whether the writer means resemblance or evaluation. Add a likeness for to or a criterion for with.
6. to — The sentence highlights one visual resemblance.
7. with — The named measurements create a side-by-side assessment.
8. One clear revision is: “The morning schedule was compared with the evening schedule for travel time and staffing.” The criteria make the evaluative purpose explicit.

Apply the same test to two under-specified sentences:

• “The new layout was compared to the old layout.” To make an analogy, name the resemblance: “The new layout was compared to the old layout’s branching tree pattern.” To make an evaluation, write: “The new layout was compared with the old layout for navigation time.”
• “The speaker compared the project with a relay race.” If the intended job is analogy, revise it to “The speaker compared the project to a relay race because each team handed work to the next.” If the speaker actually assessed two projects, replace a relay race with the second project and name the criteria.

If a draft shifts between analogy and evaluation, revise more than the preposition. Add the likeness, criterion, or result that lets the reader understand why the comparison is being made.