When should "due to" be preferred over "thanks to", and vice versa? When can they be used interchangeably?


4 Answers 4


Thanks to has a positive connotation (unless used sarcastically). Due to is more neutral - it can have both a negative and a positive connotation.

We postponed our vacation plans due to the oil spill.

It was due to Dwight's efforts that this question was asked.

It was thanks to Dwight's efforts that this question was asked.


Due to: as a result of

Thanks to: with the help of

  • 2
    The other meaning of thanks to is due to. Both due to, and thanks to can be used with the same meaning, but they have a different connotation.
    – apaderno
    Jan 29, 2011 at 20:33

It seems to me that thanks to is always used if the reason (i.e., the text after the thanks to) is of a positive nature and the result is positive too, whereas with due to the reason is typically of a negative nature and the result as well. Mismatches indicate a deeper meaning, usually with some irony:

  • Thanks to the beautiful weather we had a splendid day. (OK)
  • Thanks to the awful weather we were completely exhausted. (Not OK)

  • Due to my car accident I was late at the meeting. (OK)
  • Due to winning the contract John was promoted. (Not OK)

The meaning difference has already been covered, but I think it’s worth pointing out that there is also a syntactical difference — the words due and thanks are not interchangeable, even in contexts where to do so would not affect the meaning.

Consider that, to replace due with thanks, this:

We postponed our vacation plans due to the oil spill.

would usually be rephrased as this:

Our vacation was postponed thanks to the oil spill.

Although in the second case, due could be substituted. This is because due can also be interpreted as because, which can be taken as a motivator for personal action, while thanks cannot. It does not make sense to say that I did X thanks to Y, although it would if you were to say X was done thanks to Y. Unless you are using a verb that implies an ability to act, rather than an action itself.

Having said all that, this is such an incredibly subtle distinction that I would not be surprised to discover that it varies by country, or even more finely, but to the best of my knowledge this is how they are — or should be — used.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.