Compare Instapaper, PaperSpan, and Pocket: Which App is the Best?

PaperSpan is pretty good at the basic stuff. It takes messy web articles and makes them actually readable, which is honestly the main thing you want from an app like this. No ads, no random pop-ups, just clean text that's easy on the eyes.

• Saving Articles: Click one button and it's saved. The app even sorts them into categories automatically, which actually works most of the time.
• Clean Reading: Articles look way better in the app than on the original websites. No clutter, just the content.
• Offline Reading: Download stuff to read on the subway or plane. Really handy when your internet is spotty.
• Listen to Articles: The text-to-speech thing is useful if you want to "read" while doing dishes or whatever.
• Works Everywhere: Save on your computer, read on your phone. It syncs pretty well most of the time.
• Kindle Thing: You can send articles to your Kindle, which is nice if you prefer reading on e-ink.

The annoying part is that sometimes the text gets cut off halfway through an article, so you have to switch to the web view to finish reading. Also, the search could be better. It's a solid app for basic use, but if you want fancy features, you might be disappointed. We'd give it 7.3 out of 10.

Performance is PaperSpan's biggest weakness. When everything works correctly, the app is fast and responsive. Article saving is quick, reading is smooth, and offline functionality is excellent. The problem is consistency—too many things go wrong too often.

The most common issues we encountered include sync problems between devices, network connectivity failures during signup, and the frustrating text view cutoff that interrupts reading sessions. The discontinued Chrome extension also limits desktop integration significantly.

These aren't dealbreaking problems, but they add up to an inconsistent user experience. The positive news is that recent ratings have improved significantly (4.13/5 for the last 100 reviews compared to 3.8/5 overall), indicating the developers are actively addressing these issues. Performance score: 6.9/10.

PaperSpan's design prioritizes function over form, which works well for the reading experience but falls short everywhere else. The article reader itself is excellent—clean typography, perfect spacing, and smart image handling make reading genuinely enjoyable.

• Reading Interface: Distraction-free design that puts your content front and center.
• Article Formatting: Excellent text sizing and spacing that's comfortable for extended reading sessions.
• Navigation: Simple menu structure that anyone can understand immediately.

The problem is everything outside the reading experience. The overall interface looks and feels outdated compared to modern apps. Multiple users mentioned this in reviews, and we completely agree—PaperSpan desperately needs a visual refresh. The functionality is solid, but the dated appearance undermines the user experience. Design score: 6.2/10.

PaperSpan gets this right from the first minute. The app is genuinely intuitive—no complex setup, no overwhelming feature lists, just straightforward functionality that works exactly as you'd expect. Within minutes of downloading, you're saving and reading articles effortlessly.

The basics are seamless. Save articles with one click from your browser, and the automatic categorization handles organization without any input from you. Reading controls are exactly where you'd expect them, and switching between text and web view is instant when needed.

We did encounter some frustrating technical issues. Network connectivity problems during signup affect multiple users, and we experienced sync delays between devices. The text cutoff issue can be annoying mid-article. These problems don't break the app, but they create unnecessary friction in what should be a smooth experience. Ease of use score: 7.8/10.

Security and privacy aren't PaperSpan's strongest selling points, mainly because there's limited transparency about how your data is handled. The app stores your reading data on their servers for syncing across devices, which is standard practice but means your reading habits and saved articles aren't kept locally.

What concerned us most was the lack of detailed privacy documentation. For an app that handles your reading preferences, article URLs, and potentially sensitive saved content, clearer communication about data protection would be reassuring. We didn't encounter obvious security problems during testing, but the transparency gap is noticeable.

Most users probably won't find this problematic for everyday use, but privacy-conscious readers might want to dig deeper into the terms of service or consider alternatives with more transparent data practices. Security and privacy gets 6.8 out of 10.