"Limited to" vs "restricted to"

Question

"Limited to" vs "restricted to"

Both 'restricted to' and 'limited to' are correct phrases that are commonly used in English. They are often interchangeable, but 'restricted to' implies a stronger limitation or control compared to 'limited to'. The choice between the two depends on the context and the level of constraint you want to convey.

Last Updated: March 25, 2024

This phrase is used to indicate a restriction or constraint, but with a slightly less strict connotation compared to 'restricted to'.

Examples:

The menu is limited to vegetarian options.
The competition is limited to participants under 18 years old.
The offer is limited to one per customer.
The discussion was limited to a brief overview.
The study was limited to a specific geographic area.

Alternatives:

restricted to
confined to
constrained to
bound to
circumscribed to

This phrase is used to indicate a strict limitation or control over something or someone.

Examples:

Access to the building is restricted to authorized personnel only.
The event is restricted to invited guests.
The use of this equipment is restricted to trained professionals.
The discussion was restricted to a few key points.
The study was restricted to participants aged 18-25.

Alternatives:

limited to
confined to
constrained to
bound to
circumscribed to

Answer 1

Limited to

This phrase is correct and commonly used in English.

Answer 2

restricted to

This phrase is correct and commonly used in English.

"Limited to" vs "restricted to"

Limited to

restricted to

Related Comparisons