Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
PhantomJS vs jsreport: What are the differences?
Introduction
PhantomJS and jsreport are both tools used for web scraping and generating PDF reports. However, they have some key differences that set them apart.
Functionality: PhantomJS is a headless browser that allows you to programmatically interact with webpages and perform actions like clicking buttons or filling out forms. It is mainly used for web scraping and automated testing. On the other hand, jsreport is a reporting tool that allows you to generate PDF, Excel, and Word documents using HTML templates. It provides a more user-friendly and high-level approach to report generation.
Technology Stack: PhantomJS is built on top of WebKit, a layout engine used by popular browsers like Chrome and Safari. It supports a wide range of web technologies and has excellent rendering capabilities. Jsreport, on the other hand, is built on top of Node.js and uses the Chromium rendering engine. It leverages the power of JavaScript and provides a flexible and extensible platform for generating reports.
Ease of Use: PhantomJS requires a certain level of expertise in web development and scripting. It provides a low-level API that gives you full control over the browser. Jsreport, on the other hand, provides a higher-level API that abstracts away some of the complexities of HTML to PDF conversion. It provides a user-friendly interface and a wide range of predefined templates and helpers to simplify report generation.
Community and Support: PhantomJS has been around for a longer time and has a larger community of developers. It has an active GitHub repository and comprehensive documentation. Jsreport, although relatively newer, also has a growing community and provides good documentation and support through its GitHub repository and forums.
Integration with Other Tools: PhantomJS can be easily integrated with other tools and libraries in the JavaScript ecosystem. It provides a command-line interface and bindings for popular programming languages like JavaScript, Python, and Ruby. Jsreport also offers integrations with popular frameworks and libraries like React, Angular, and Express.js. It provides a RESTful API and can be easily integrated with any stack.
Performance: PhantomJS is known for its high performance and fast rendering capabilities. It is designed for headless browsing and can handle a large number of requests efficiently. Jsreport also provides good performance but may not be as fast as PhantomJS when it comes to handling large-scale scraping tasks or generating reports with complex templates.
In summary, PhantomJS is a powerful tool for web scraping and automated testing, while jsreport is a versatile tool for generating PDF reports using HTML templates. PhantomJS provides more low-level control and is better suited for web development tasks, whereas jsreport offers a more user-friendly and high-level approach to report generation.
I am using Node 12 for server scripting and have a function to generate PDF and send it to a browser. Currently, we are using PhantomJS to generate a PDF. Some web post shows that we can achieve PDF generation using Puppeteer. I was a bit confused. Should we move to puppeteerJS? Which one is better with NodeJS for generating PDF?
You better go with puppeteer. It is basically chrome automation tool, written in nodejs. So what you get is PDF, generated by chrome itself. I guess there is hardly better PDF generation tool for the web. Phantomjs is already more or less outdated as technology. It uses some old webkit port that's quite behind in terms of standards and features. It can be replaced with puppeteer for every single task.
I suggest puppeteer to go for. It is simple and easy to set up. Only limitaiton is it can be used only for chrome browser and currently they are looking into expanding into FF. The next thing is Playwright which is just a scale up of Puppeteer. It supports cross browsers.
Pros of jsreport
Pros of PhantomJS
- Scriptable web browser13
- Depends on QT3
- No ECMAScript 62