There is no best. Nothing authoritative ranks writing software, and every ranked list you have read is affiliate content, including the ones that do not say so.
This page is published on the site of a writing application, which is a second reason to discount any ranking it offered. So it will not offer one. What it will do is give you the criteria that can actually be checked, and be explicit about where our own tool sits.
Why Rankings Are Worthless Here
No standards body, publisher, editorial association or writers' organisation ranks these tools. I looked. The Editorial Freelancers Association, CIEP, Editors Canada, IPEd, the Authors Guild, the Society of Authors and ALLi publish nothing on writing software.
So a ranking cannot be sourced. It can only be asserted, usually by someone paid per click.
Rankings are also the wrong shape for the decision. Features are easy to photograph and easy to change. What you are actually committing to when you put three years of work into a tool is its file format, and that is what nobody ranks.
The Criteria That Can Be Checked
Six questions, all answerable before you commit, none requiring anyone's opinion.
1. Is the project one file or a folder? A single file syncs, copies and backs up like any document. A folder can partially sync, which is a real failure mode: Literature and Latte warn that cloud storage optimisation "can cause some of the component files in your project to appear to be missing or blank."
2. What is your prose stored as? Plain text, Markdown, XML and SQLite are inspectable with ordinary tools. Proprietary binary is not. Worth checking: Scrivener stores document text as RTF, a format frozen since 2008 with no Unicode encoding, which Word's own Save As dialog warns "does not reliably preserve the formatting, layout, or other features of the document."
3. Does it export DOCX with real styles? Styles rather than direct formatting are what an editor needs. See DOCX vs RTF for sending to an editor.
4. What happens to notes, synopses, labels and status? These almost never survive an export, and no vendor publishes a fidelity matrix. Nobody documents what leaves cleanly.
5. Does it produce publishable output, or only a manuscript? EPUB and print PDF matter if you intend to self publish; they are irrelevant if you are querying agents.
6. What do the backups actually do? Rotating overwrite is common and is a genuine data-loss risk.
Then test it: a file containing everything you use, exported and imported elsewhere. Method in how to move a manuscript between writing apps.
Choose the Category First
The choice between kinds matters more than the choice within a kind.
Structured project apps give you a binder, per-document notes, and reorderable scenes. Best for long or complex books. The cost is a project format, in every case.
Plain text and Markdown systems give maximum portability, since the files open anywhere. The cost is that structure and metadata live in conventions rather than in the tool, and there is no export pipeline. Note the common claim that these are "archival" is unsourced: the Library of Congress maintains no format description for Markdown or plain text at all.
Word processors give one document and universal compatibility, with no structure. See writing a novel in Word vs dedicated software.
If your novel is linear and short, a structured app may buy less than the switching cost. If you are juggling timelines, viewpoints and research, structure pays for itself quickly.
Where Deckle Sits, Stated Plainly
Discount this accordingly, and check it rather than taking our word.
Deckle is a structured project app, so it carries the structural benefits and, in principle, the portability question that comes with them. Two choices address it.
A project is a single file. A .deckle project is one SQLite file, not a package or folder, which removes the partial-sync and folder-integrity failures described above.
Export is first class. DOCX, EPUB and PDF from Compile, plus Markdown and plain text separately. The DOCX carries real Word paragraph styles.
Import runs from DOCX, EPUB and Scrivener projects.
What we do not claim: we publish no export-fidelity matrix either, because we have not tested every destination application. Nobody has. And Deckle is not better than the alternatives for every writer. If you want plain text files you can read in fifty years with no software at all, a Markdown system is a better fit and you should use one.
Common Mistakes
- Trusting a ranked list. Nothing authoritative ranks writing software.
- Comparing features rather than storage. Features change; the file format is the commitment.
- Assuming a project is a file. In several apps it is a folder that must move intact.
- Ignoring what your prose is stored as. RTF underneath is a genuine limitation.
- Switching mid-draft. Finish something first.
- Believing plain text is certified archival. No format authority has assessed it.
FAQ
Q: What is the best novel writing software? A: Nothing authoritative ranks them. Judge on how work is stored and what leaves cleanly.
Q: Why won't this page recommend one? A: No sourceable ranking exists, and this site belongs to one of the options.
Q: What should I actually check? A: Whether the project is one file, what the prose is stored as, and whether a test export survives intact.
Q: Is dedicated software necessary? A: No. Plenty of novels are written in Word. Structure earns its keep on complex books.
Q: Will my work be trapped? A: Your text rarely is. Notes, synopses and labels usually are, and no vendor documents which.