Duolingo Japanese Course vs Duolingo English Test
Same Bayesian formula, same rubric — so the difference in scores reflects the difference in the courses, not the difference in how we evaluated them.
Duolingo · Languages
Duolingo Japanese Course
Duolingo · Languages
Duolingo English Test
Per-criterion
Strong on the early basics — hiragana and katakana are introduced and reinforced well, and vocabulary exposure is broad. But reviewers repeatedly flag thin kanji coverage (no readings, radicals, or stroke order) and the absence of structured grammar, which matters far more for Japanese than for European languages.
There is no instructor. The method is implicit pattern-matching, and multiple reviewers say it "does not explain why sentences are structured the way they are." For a language whose grammar differs sharply from English, that hands-off approach is the app's biggest teaching weakness.
The core course is genuinely free, which is its strongest selling point — zero-cost exposure to kana and basic vocabulary. Super at ~$13/month only removes ads and adds hearts; reviewers agree it does not fix the structural gaps, so the value is in the free tier.
Gamification is the standout. Streaks, points, and reminders genuinely build a daily habit, and the spaced-repetition loop reinforces kana and vocab. The catch is the well-documented plateau around month 3-4, where recognition keeps improving but real ability stalls.
This is the weakest area. There is no genuine speaking or conversation practice — exercises ask you to repeat pre-written sentences — and reviewers agree the app cannot prepare you for real Japanese conversation. It is a supplement, not a path to fluency on its own.
Adaptive difficulty and integrated skill design are genuine strengths. Weakened by the absence of a formal essay (only a 5-minute writing sample), opinion-based speaking prompts, and a perceived lack of academic rigour versus IELTS and TOEFL among experienced practitioners.
No published answer keys, rubrics, or section-level guidance — the weakest methodology dimension. Some test-takers receive a score range spanning three CEFR levels rather than a single number, making preparation harder than for IELTS or TOEFL.
$65 per attempt with unlimited free score sends versus $220-plus for IELTS. 48-hour results and no test-centre booking add further convenience. The primary reason test-takers choose the DET over alternatives.
At-home, on-demand testing removes scheduling friction and supports repeated attempts. Three-tier human review provides oversight. Weakened by documented AI false-flag incidents and a 72-hour appeal window that can frustrate test-takers.
6,000-plus programs in 110-plus countries accept it, including 98 of the US News Top 100 universities and all Ivy League schools. IELTS is accepted by 12,500-plus organisations — more than double. UK/Australian visa routes and professional bodies don't yet accept at-home tests.
Scoring methodology applies identically to every course on the site — see the formula.