1. The Chicago Manual of Style uses footnotes, which are far better than MLA’s equivalent, in-text citation.
2. In-text citation doesn’t convey nearly as much information at a glance. This means, as a reader, you have to go all the way to the bibliography if you want more information about a source.
3. Chicago Manual also has endnotes, too, just in case you don’t want the footnotes cramping your style. Chicago Manual is considerate like that.
4. The Chicago Manual of Style’s footnotes/endnotes can also be informational, like this one…
6. MLA’s in-text citations are just ugly. They disrupt the reading process and make what you’re reading look like it was done by some high school kid, not a professional writer.
7. Chicago Manual has Ibid, which is short for “ibidem” which sounds really cool. MLA has nothing that sounds cool.
“Ibidem” is Latin for “the same place”. You use it when you’re citing from the same source twice in a row, this way you don’t have to write the source out again. You just do “Ibid” and then the page number, if the page number is different.
8. Speaking of things that sound cool, the Chicago Manual of Style can also go by a badass nickname, “Turabian.”
Turabian was a style guide developed by University of Chicago dissertation secretary Kate L. Turabian. The two styles are so similar they are, essentially, synonymous. The main difference is that the Chicago Manual of Style has more general rules, while Turabian’s work has more specific guidelines for things like dissertations and theses.