I Tested G2's 7 Best Reference Managers for Easy Citations

If you’ve ever faced the dreaded task of retracing your steps to find that one article you swore you saved, you’re not alone. I’ve been there more times than I care to admit. 

As someone who deals with content-heavy projects daily, I’ve learned the hard way that relying on bookmarks, spreadsheets, or my memory just doesn’t cut it. Whether gathering industry reports for a whitepaper, pulling data for SEO content, or citing sources in thought leadership pieces, keeping track of references is a job in itself.

For a long time, I relied on a messy system of browser tabs, hastily named files, and scattered notes—until I realized it was costing me precious hours (and my sanity). That’s when I decided to explore the best reference manager tools—designed to take the chaos out of organizing and citing sources. 

Reference management software isn't just about keeping sources organized; they’re about reclaiming time and reducing the stress of last-minute formatting or forgotten citations. Over the past few weeks, I’ve tested 20+ solutions, evaluating them based on their functionality, ease of use, and how well they fit into my workflows. 

Whether you’re working on academic research, content creation, or any other project that demands precise referencing, my list of 7 best reference managers is here to match your needs. From automatic citation generation to cloud-based collaboration features, these tools can transform how you manage references.

7 best reference manager and citation tools I tested

Reference management software is designed to simplify how you organize, store, and cite sources. For me, these tools serve as an essential part of my workflow, keeping everything from industry reports to online articles in one place and ready to use. They also save valuable time when formatting citations or collaborating on research-heavy projects.

When testing these tools, I wanted something versatile enough to handle a mix of professional sources, intuitive enough not to slow me down, and reliable enough to build citations accurately.

Over several weeks, I explored how each of the best reference managers worked in practical scenarios—organizing references for articles, creating resource lists for whitepapers, and collaborating with colleagues on shared databases. 

Some impressed me with their robust features, like seamless integration with writing tools or the ability to automatically pull metadata from sources. Others felt clunky or overcomplicated for everyday use.

My goal was to find tools that would fit seamlessly into my workflow without adding complexity, and only those that met these criteria made it to my final list. 

How I picked the best reference managers: My checklist

Think of reference managers as digital librarians who keep all your references in one place, format them for you, and even integrate them with your writing tools. For someone like me, who’s constantly working on content-heavy projects, they’re not “good to have” but essential.

Here are the factors I considered to evaluate each tool, focusing on things that made these 7 solutions stand out from the rest:

• Ease of use and interface: I prioritized tools that offered a simple, intuitive interface that didn’t require a steep learning curve. As someone constantly on tight deadlines, I needed a reference manager that I could jump into and use right away without getting bogged down by complicated navigation or unnecessary features. The software had to be seamless, especially for quickly adding and organizing references while working on other tasks.
• Citation accuracy and flexibility: Ensuring the software could generate accurate citations in multiple styles (APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.) was non-negotiable. I also needed tools that allowed for customization, whether adjusting citation formats or adding additional fields to accommodate the diverse sources I work with—articles, reports, and more.
• Integration with writing platforms: I tested how well each tool integrated with writing platforms I use daily, like Google Docs. A strong citation manager should be able to pull citations directly from the tool’s library and insert them into my documents with just a click. This integration is a time-saver and ensures my workflow stays smooth and uninterrupted.
• Source importing and accuracy: I looked for software that made it easy to import sources from various platforms—academic journals, websites, PDFs, and more. The ability to automatically fetch accurate metadata from these sources was key. I tested whether the software could detect and extract the correct author names, titles, publication dates, and other necessary details without requiring manual adjustments.
• Collaboration and sharing capabilities: Since virtual collaboration is integral to my work, I needed tools that supported team-based reference management. This meant sharing libraries, assigning tasks, and adding notes to individual references. The software had to allow my team to collaborate in real time, making it easy to track shared sources and avoid duplicate entries.
• Cloud syncing and multi-device access: Lastly, I ensured the software had strong cloud syncing capabilities, allowing me to access my references across different devices—whether I was on my desktop in the office, my laptop at home, or my phone while on the go. This level of accessibility made it easy to keep my reference library updated and accessible no matter where I was working.

After careful evaluation, I’ve identified the 7 reference management software managers that stood out the most. These reference and citation managers excelled in usability, functionality, and efficiency, making them perfect for researchers, writers, and professionals.

The list below contains genuine user reviews from the best reference management software category page. To be included in this category, a solution must:

• Provide multiple options for citation format
• Generate citations for various materials such as books, websites, journals, etc.
• Provide features that organize research and source information.

*This data was pulled from G2 in 2025. Some reviews may have been edited for clarity.  

1. EasyBib.com

When I first tried EasyBib, I was immediately impressed by its easy navigation. The interface is clean and intuitive, which was a big plus for me. I didn’t have to figure out where everything was—I could simply start typing in the source I needed, and EasyBib would automatically pull up the correct citation format. This was perfect for keeping my workflow moving quickly without getting bogged down by manual formatting.

I appreciated EasyBib’s ability to handle a wide range of sources. Whether it was books, journal articles, websites, or even YouTube videos, EasyBib had no trouble pulling accurate citation data from each. 

I found it particularly useful when working on multiple projects at once—organizing and categorizing my citations into different folders was incredibly helpful. I could quickly reference specific lists of sources for different content pieces, making my process much smoother.

The fact that it’s cloud-based also made a huge difference. I didn’t have to worry about manually saving or transferring my work between devices—everything I needed was automatically saved and synced across my desktop and mobile.

However, EasyBib fell short in a few areas. One downside was that some citation formats for more obscure sources didn’t always come out ideally. For example, podcasts and social media references often require extra attention to format them correctly. 

Another issue I ran into was the limitations of the free version. While it offers the basic features I needed, some more advanced capabilities, like the auto-bibliography tool and extended reference storage, are behind a paywall, which was frustrating.

Overall, EasyBib is a solid choice for someone looking for a straightforward and user-friendly citation tool, but the free version's lack of advanced features could be a deal-breaker for more extensive users.

What I dislike about EasyBib.com:

• I had to manually adjust citations for non-traditional sources like podcasts or social media to ensure they were correct.
• The free version has a lot of restrictions—like the number of citations I could store or the advanced features like auto-bibliography creation—which means I ended up considering an upgrade after a point. 

What G2 users dislike about EasyBib.com:

“The never-ending advertisements and videos are a great distraction to any user, especially when using them as a free service.”

- EasyBib.com Review, Calvaro M.

2. Afforai

When I started using Afforai, it was clear that this tool was designed for users who want to blend intelligent automation with reference management. 

Afforai sets itself apart by incorporating AI to assist in organizing, tagging, and retrieving references. The standout feature for me was the advanced search capabilities—it didn’t just pull up exact matches but also suggested related sources and tags based on the content of my library.

I tested Afforai with academic papers, blog posts, and technical reports to see how well it could manage diverse sources. The AI-powered tagging system impressed me the most. As I added new references, Afforai automatically categorized them into relevant topics. 

For example, when I uploaded an article on AI trends, it grouped it with related sources on machine learning and automation without me intervening. This saved me so much time that I would’ve otherwise spent manually organizing my references.

Another thing I liked was its ability to extract metadata accurately. Unlike tools that occasionally missed key details like publication year or author names, Afforai consistently got it right. I didn’t have to make manual corrections, even for more obscure sources.

Conversely, Afforai initially felt overwhelming due to the sheer number of features and options. The interface, while functional, could use some refinement to make navigation smoother for new users. It took me a while to fully utilize the AI features, but it was worth the effort once I did. 

Another drawback was its limited integration with external platforms. While it worked well as a standalone tool, I wished it connected more seamlessly with writing tools like Google Docs or Microsoft Word.

What I dislike about Afforai:

• I wished Afforai could sync directly with my writing tools, such as Google Docs or Word. Manually transferring references into documents added unnecessary steps to my workflow.
•  It took a good amount of trial and error to understand and fully utilize the more advanced AI features. While the payoff was worth it, I wished for more apparent guides or onboarding support.

What G2 users dislike about Afforai:

“The search by reference function is interesting but not quite up to standard yet. I am given an overly generic summary when I ask for a journal article summary on a topic (e.g., missing data). It is not easy to summarize stored articles at this point. Also, I have the paid student plan, but I think the Free tier has very low storage and usage limits. The price for the student and all plans is more than reasonable, but the storage is so low in Afforai that I hesitate to recommend it to friends.”

- Afforai Review, Megan H.

3. ReadCube

Using ReadCube was like stepping into a modern, polished tool designed with researchers and avid readers in mind.

The first feature that grabbed my attention was its enhanced PDF reader. I could annotate directly on the PDF, highlight key sections, and even add sticky notes with my thoughts as I worked through dense research papers. For someone who spends a lot of time reviewing documents, this functionality is tailored to my needs.

I also tested its citation management capabilities, and the integration with cloud storage was seamless. I uploaded a mix of PDFs, articles, and reports, and ReadCube automatically organized them into a central library. What impressed me here was its innovative search feature. I could search by author, title, or even keywords within the PDF, which made retrieving specific information incredibly efficient.

One unique feature I explored was the related article suggestion. ReadCube analyzed the content I was reading and offered recommendations for additional papers. While this was helpful when I wanted to dive deeper into a topic, the accuracy wasn’t perfect—it sometimes suggested sources that weren’t entirely relevant.

Where ReadCube stumbled for me was in its subscription model. While the core features are free, syncing libraries across multiple devices or accessing unlimited cloud storage is locked behind a premium plan. 

Finally, the highlighting tool could be temperamental, especially with scanned PDFs. It struggled to recognize text in older or non-standard document formats, which interrupted my workflow.

What I dislike about ReadCube:

• With large libraries, ReadCube’s interface felt crowded. It showed too many options at once, sometimes making managing dozens of references clunky.
• The related articles feature occasionally recommended papers that were only loosely connected to my topic, which disrupted my workflow.

What G2 users dislike about ReadCube:

“It would be nice to have the option to save more searches, i.e., create more types of smart lists. It would also be great to have options to visualize connections between papers in my library. And finally, if there were a way to use my digital pen in the reading mode, that would be life-changing.”

- ReadCube Review, Inka L.

4. Mendeley

Mendeley quickly became one of my favorite reference managers, especially for its ability to combine reference management with collaboration.

The desktop app felt intuitive, and setting up my library was straightforward. I uploaded a mix of journal articles, research papers, and e-books, and Mendeley automatically extracted metadata like titles, authors, and publication years. While not always perfect, its ability to recognize and organize files saved me hours compared to manually inputting details.

What stood out was Mendeley’s collaboration features. Sharing a folder with colleagues felt effortless—I could invite them to access my curated library, add their references, and annotate shared documents. This was a game-changer when I worked on a group project where we needed to keep track of overlapping sources.

During my test, I explored Mendeley’s citation plugin for Word. It allowed me to insert references and build a bibliography directly within my documents. Switching between citation styles was easy, but I noticed it occasionally stumbled on niche or non-standard styles, requiring manual tweaks.

On the downside, Mendeley’s mobile app left a lot to be desired. While convenient for viewing references, it lacked essential features like bulk editing and advanced search. I also found syncing between devices inconsistent regarding annotations, which disrupted my workflow when switching from desktop to mobile. 

Additionally, Mendeley’s social network features, such as finding researchers with similar interests, didn’t add much value for me—I rarely saw a practical use for them.

What I dislike about Mendeley:

• When I highlighted or annotated a document on my desktop, those changes didn’t always appear on my mobile device or vice versa. This meant redoing work, which interrupted my momentum.
• Although metadata extraction worked well for newer papers, it struggled with older documents or PDFs with poor formatting. I often had to correct incorrect author names or missing publication dates manually.

What G2 users dislike about Mendeley:

“Everything great about Mendeley, from before the Elsevier acquisition, is gone. The application used to be entirely functional for creating in-text citations with the Word plug-in offline. You must be signed in to your Mendeley account to use the Word plug-in. You can no longer work with your citations offline. I will be finding a new reference manager and citation tool.”

- Medley Review, Morgan R.

5. EndNote

EndNote is the tool I turned to when I needed a powerful reference manager for large-scale and demanding projects. From the start, I saw its potential for tackling complex tasks. 

When I imported my library of over a thousand references, it didn’t just handle the volume effortlessly—it automatically flagged duplicates. It also let me group references into folders based on categories I defined, saving me hours of manual cleanup and organization.

One feature I spent a lot of time with was custom citation formatting, which allowed me to modify existing citation styles or create entirely new ones. This was useful for adhering to journal-specific requirements during research papers. 

Unlike many tools that force you to use predefined templates, EndNote gave me complete control. I even created a style for a niche industry journal, and once I mastered it, the process was surprisingly efficient.

Its Word integration was equally robust. Adding citations directly into a multi-author document felt seamless. The bibliography updated automatically whenever I added or removed a reference, which was a relief during last-minute edits. 

However, I noticed that the software’s interface felt outdated and unintuitive. It’s packed with features, but finding the right options took longer than it should have. The icons were small, the menus were overwhelming, and the design was not clean. I was frustrated while hunting for features buried in multiple submenus.

Collaboration was another area where EndNote fell short for me. While sharing libraries is possible, team members must install the software on their devices, and syncing changes wasn’t always reliable. For projects where I worked closely with others, this added unnecessary friction.

What I dislike about EndNote:

• Sharing libraries was far from seamless. Everyone needed the software installed, and syncing between collaborators wasn’t always reliable. This made group projects more cumbersome than necessary.
• While generally excellent, the Word plugin sometimes froze during extensive edits, especially in long documents with dozens of references. Restarting resolved the issue, but it broke my workflow.

What G2 users dislike about EndNote:

“While EndNote offers numerous benefits, the software was initially somewhat challenging to learn. It isn't that the user interface is unclear -- quite the opposite -- it just is not the most intuitive and requires a bit of trial and error before achieving a place of comfort with the software. However, once this expertise is completed, the time saved grows exponentially. 

Users should think of this as an initial time investment -- yes, it will take a bit of extra time in the beginning, perhaps even above and beyond that of simply organizing the references manually. Still, after several uses, the saved time becomes immeasurable.”

- EndNote Review, Zachary Z.

6. Article Galaxy

Article Galaxy was a great find because it provides access to academic papers and articles often locked behind paywalls. As someone who regularly needs access to specialized journals, reports,  and articles, I was excited to see how this tool could help improve my research. 

Right off the bat, I was impressed by the user-friendly search interface—I could easily search for articles across various fields, and the tool provided a preview of each paper, letting me know if I could access the full text.

One of my most valuable features was direct article access and delivery. When I found a paper that needed it, Article Galaxy let me request a copy directly from the publisher or library. I could download it quickly without going through multiple steps or waiting for email confirmations. This sped up my workflow significantly, especially when I had deadlines.

The preview of each paper helped me determine relevance before making a purchase or request. This feature reduced unnecessary searches and saved me time, allowing me to focus on what truly mattered to my projects.

However, I did find that Article Galaxy's subscription model was a bit limiting. While you can pay per article or access specific libraries through a subscription, I quickly realized that the pay-per-use option could add up if you regularly access many papers. 

Another downside I noticed was its lack of integration with reference management tools. It didn’t offer a seamless way to import articles directly into my library like other tools I’ve used. I had to manually add references, which slowed things down, especially when working with large amounts of material.

What I dislike about Article Galaxy:

• Article Galaxy didn’t integrate well with reference management software. I had to manually input references into my library, which felt tedious and time-consuming compared to other platforms that offer automatic syncing.
• Unlike other tools that could handle more comprehensive research needs, it didn’t provide organizational features for managing references and notes.

What G2 users dislike about Article Galaxy:

“Downsides are the absence of a built-in reader and offline access. I like to highlight things on a paper, so I wish I could have this chance and my annotations are saved. I also find Bibliogo is not very user-friendly, and the organization of papers in folders seems impossible (smart folders are difficult to comprehend, and I find it tricky to explain it to my colleagues).”

- Article Galaxy Review, Elvira D.

7. Scopus

Scopus offers a vast collection of academic literature, and I was eager to dive in and test its features. Right off the bat, one thing that impressed me was the advanced search options.

The interface allows for highly detailed searches so that I can filter results based on publication date, citation count, and article type (conference papers, journals, reviews, etc.). This control over my search results was handy when I needed to find highly relevant studies from the most reputable journals.

Another standout feature was Scopus' citation tracking and analytics tools. After selecting a paper, I could quickly see how many times it had been cited and access additional insights about the article’s impact in the field. I could also identify which other papers cited it, allowing me to follow the research chain that built upon the study. This function is valuable for academic research and assessing the credibility and relevance of papers, which is critical for my work and advising others.

Additionally, I appreciated how Scopus aggregates publications from high-impact journals and conference proceedings. While searching, I encountered numerous respected titles, many of which I would otherwise have to go out of my way to track down. The ability to view these publications in one place, combined with the filters I could apply, made it easy to identify the highest quality and most pertinent sources quickly.

However, one frustration I encountered was the lack of full-text access for some articles. Scopus provides links to the publisher’s website, but this often leads to a paywall. 

As a result, I needed to either use institutional access or track down alternative methods for obtaining the papers. It was a bit of a hurdle, especially when trying to access resources quickly.

I also feel Scopus is highly efficient for individual research, but it doesn’t offer many tools for collaboration. If you're working with a team or need to share findings with colleagues, Scopus falls short in that department.

What I dislike about Scopus:

• While Scopus is a goldmine for finding references, the links to articles often led to paywalls. This meant I had to rely on external institutional access, which was inconvenient.
• The cost of subscribing to Scopus is higher, which could be a dealbreaker for individual researchers or those without institutional support. For those who need frequent access, this price may feel unjustifiable.

What G2 users dislike about Scopus:

“Scopus is not of public access and requires access from an academic institution. Moreover, there is a few week's delay in the appearance on Scopus. This can sometimes create problems in position applications.”

- Scopus Review, Matilde D.

Frequently asked questions about best reference manager tools 

Have more questions? Find more answers below.

What is the best software to keep track of references?

Mendeley is an excellent choice for managing references due to its cloud syncing, PDF annotation tools, and ease of use. It’s ideal for individuals managing many references and working across multiple devices. EndNote, with its extensive citation style options, also offers robust reference tracking for more advanced users.

Between Mendeley and EndNote, which reference manager is better?

Both have merits. Mendeley shines for collaboration, and its user-friendly features, such as cloud storage and PDF annotation tools, make it ideal for those working in groups or remotely. On the other hand, I prefer EndNote to handle complex projects. Its in-depth citation capabilities, integration with word processors, and broad style compatibility make it a powerful tool for detailed work.

What is the best free reference management software?

EasyBib.com offers a solid free version that works well for essential citation management, though it’s limited in advanced features. Mendeley also has a strong free tier, offering cloud syncing, annotation tools, and collaboration features. Some premium features, like additional storage, are behind a paywall. Zotero remains a top contender in the free category with its full-featured offering at no cost.

What is the best reference management software for research?

Scopus and EndNote are unbeatable for advanced research needs. Scopus offers detailed citation analytics and research metrics, while EndNote excels at managing extensive libraries and complex citation requirements. For those new to reference management or with lighter needs, EasyBib.com and Mendeley provide strong but simpler options that can easily handle most research projects.

What is the best reference management software for Mac?

EndNote, Mendeley, and ReadCube are all great options for Mac users. EndNote’s polished macOS interface and powerful features make it a solid choice for academics. Mendeley’s cross-device syncing works flawlessly on macOS, while ReadCube offers a streamlined experience with added support for managing PDFs and research articles directly from your library.

Your next research chapter starts here.

Picking the right reference management software is a lot like finding a research partner—it has to match your style, adapt to your needs, and, most importantly, make your life easier. 

For me, the best reference management software isn’t just about organizing citations—it’s about finding a system that keeps me focused and productive without getting in the way. Whether you’re writing a paper, conducting extensive research, or just keeping track of sources for your next big project, I hope my review helps you find the perfect fit for your work. 

If your research or projects involve teamwork, file sharing, or version tracking, getting the right cloud content collaboration software will ensure everyone stays on the same page.