MLA vs Chicago
MLA and Chicago are both humanities styles, but they are not interchangeable. MLA uses inline parenthetical citations and a Works Cited list. Chicago (in its most common form) uses footnotes and a Bibliography. The choice is usually made for you by your department — literature courses lean MLA, history courses lean Chicago.
| Dimension | MLA | Chicago |
|---|---|---|
| Disciplines | Literature, languages, most humanities | History, theology, art history, classics |
| Current edition | MLA 9 | Chicago Manual of Style 18th (2024) |
| In-text citation | (Author page) | Footnote number linked to a full citation |
| End list | Works Cited | Bibliography |
| Footnotes | Rare, used for commentary | Standard, used for citations and commentary |
| Feel on the page | Inline references blend into text | Superscripts with dense notes at the bottom |
What is MLA?
MLA is the citation style of the Modern Language Association, dominant in literature, languages, and most English departments. Its in-text citations are parenthetical and brief: (Smith 23). The reader can glance at the citation without interrupting the flow of the sentence, then go to the Works Cited page at the end for the full entry. MLA 9 uses a ‘core elements’ approach that treats every source — book, article, podcast, tweet — as a combination of nine consistent building blocks (author, title, container, and so on). That uniform model makes MLA especially useful for students citing a mix of traditional and digital sources.
What is Chicago?
Chicago notes-and-bibliography is the dominant style in history and traditional humanities fields that prize the footnote. Instead of placing the author and page inline, a Chicago paper drops a superscript number in the sentence and puts a full citation in a footnote at the bottom of the page (or in an endnote at the back of the document). A Bibliography at the end lists every source alphabetically. Chicago’s footnote system does more work than MLA’s parenthetical citation. Historians use footnotes to cite sources, to explain why a source matters, to gesture at alternative interpretations, and to hand the reader a running commentary alongside the argument. That is why Chicago papers often have footnotes that run longer than the paragraph above them.
Key differences
The visible difference is footnotes. MLA readers almost never see them; Chicago readers almost always do. That affects everything — how dense the bottom of the page is, how much of the argument gets offloaded into the notes, and even how the writer paces the main text. The formatting differences follow. MLA uses a Works Cited, lists sources alphabetically, and uses a specific hanging-indent format. Chicago uses a Bibliography with different punctuation (notes use commas between elements; bibliography entries use periods) and different rules for first-line vs subsequent notes. Both use title case for book titles in the end list, which sets them apart from APA’s sentence-case convention.
When to use which
Use MLA when you are writing for an English or literature course, a languages course, or a general humanities class whose instructor prefers parenthetical citations. MLA is also the default in many high schools. Use Chicago when you are writing for a history, art history, theology, or classics course, or for any paper whose instructor explicitly asks for footnotes. If the course reading list is mostly primary sources and archival material, Chicago is almost always the right choice. A practical note: Chicago papers take longer to format by hand because of the note-vs-bibliography duplication, so budget time accordingly — or use a reference manager that handles both note and bibliography entries automatically.
Examples
MLA in-text: (Woolf 45). Works Cited entry: Woolf, Virginia. A Room of One’s Own. Harcourt, 1929. Chicago first footnote: 1. Virginia Woolf, A Room of One’s Own (London: Hogarth Press, 1929), 45. Bibliography entry: Woolf, Virginia. A Room of One’s Own. London: Hogarth Press, 1929. The same source appears in three different forms across the two styles — inline in MLA, as a footnote in Chicago, and again in the end-of-document list in both — and each has its own capitalization and punctuation rules. There is a hidden cost to Chicago that MLA avoids. Because Chicago footnotes carry the full first citation, the reader does not technically need the bibliography to trace a source — but almost all Chicago papers still include one, which means every cited source is effectively formatted twice, once in a note and once in a bibliography entry, with slightly different punctuation. That doubled work is why Chicago papers take longer to hand-format and why historians are among the heaviest users of reference managers like Zotero. MLA's Works Cited model is simpler in practice, but it cannot host the interpretive footnotes that historians rely on to gesture at alternative readings without interrupting the main text.
Generate either type with EssayDraft.
Start an essay