WeasyPrint vs wkhtmltopdf

Overview

wkhtmltopdf

Stacks60

Followers110

Votes0

GitHub Stars14.4K

Forks1.9K

WeasyPrint

Stacks38

Followers29

Votes0

GitHub Stars8.3K

Forks765

WeasyPrint vs wkhtmltopdf: What are the differences?

Introduction

In this Markdown document, we will discuss the key differences between WeasyPrint and wkhtmltopdf, which are both tools used for converting HTML/CSS to PDF format.

1. Installation method: WeasyPrint can be installed using Python and has its own library, while wkhtmltopdf requires a separate installation process and is not specifically tied to a programming language.

2. Supported platforms: WeasyPrint is compatible with Windows, macOS, and Linux systems, ensuring cross-platform functionality, whereas wkhtmltopdf has limited support for Windows and Linux platforms, with limited compatibility on macOS.

3. Styling support: WeasyPrint provides extensive support for CSS level 2.1 and some features from CSS level 3, enabling advanced styling options for PDF generation. On the other hand, wkhtmltopdf has limited CSS support, often requiring workarounds or manual adjustments for complex designs.

4. JavaScript execution: WeasyPrint does not execute JavaScript during the conversion process, which can be a limitation for HTML/CSS files relying on JavaScript functionality. In contrast, wkhtmltopdf supports JavaScript execution, allowing dynamic elements and interactivity in the resulting PDF.

5. Header and footer customization: WeasyPrint offers more flexibility in customizing headers and footers, empowering users to design and control these sections with HTML/CSS. In comparison, wkhtmltopdf has limitations in header and footer customization, making it harder to achieve complex layouts or interactive elements in these areas.

6. Memory usage: WeasyPrint generally consumes less memory during the conversion process, making it more efficient for converting large HTML/CSS files or dealing with limited memory resources. Conversely, wkhtmltopdf can have higher memory usage, which may impact performance when handling complex designs or bulky files.

In summary, WeasyPrint and wkhtmltopdf differ in installation methods, supported platforms, styling support, JavaScript execution, header/footer customization, and memory usage. WeasyPrint provides easier installation, broader platform compatibility, advanced CSS styling, no JavaScript execution, flexible header/footer customization, and lower memory consumption compared to wkhtmltopdf.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Detailed Comparison

wkhtmltopdf	WeasyPrint
wkhtmltopdf and wkhtmltoimage are command line tools to render HTML into PDF and various image formats using the QT Webkit rendering engine. These run entirely "headless" and do not require a display or display service.	It is a visual rendering engine for HTML and CSS that can export to PDF. It aims to support web standards for printing. It is free software made available under a BSD license.
-	URLS; PDF; HTML; Fonts; CSS
Statistics
GitHub Stars 14.4K	GitHub Stars 8.3K
GitHub Forks 1.9K	GitHub Forks 765
Stacks 60	Stacks 38
Followers 110	Followers 29
Votes 0	Votes 0
Integrations
No integrations available	Python Heroku Zapier Dropbox Windows Linux DocGen macOS

What are some alternatives to wkhtmltopdf, WeasyPrint?

DocRaptor

DocRaptor makes it easy to convert HTML to PDF and XLS format. Choose your document format, select configuration options and make an HTTP POST request to our server. DocRaptor returns your file in a matter of seconds. We provide extensive documentation and examples to get you started, and our API makes it easy to use DocRaptor to generate PDF and Excel files in your own web applications.

Pandoc

It is a free and open-source document converter, widely used as a writing tool and as a basis for publishing workflows. It converts files from one markup format into another. It can convert documents in (several dialects of) Markdown, reStructuredText, textile, HTML, DocBook, LaTeX, MediaWiki markup, TWiki and many more.

Inkfluence AI

Plan, write, and publish books, PDF guides, workbooks, and audiobooks with AI workflows. Customize branding and export instantly.

2dto3D

Upload any image and get a downloadable 3D model in minutes. AI-powered image to 3D conversion with professional quality GLB files. Built by people who actually use 3D tools.

PDF.js

It is a Portable Document Format (PDF) viewer that is built with HTML5. It is community-driven and supported by Mozilla Labs. The goal is to create a general-purpose, web standards-based platform for parsing and rendering PDFs.

Typ

It is a simple typesetting application. Turn plain Markdown into a formatted PDF, ready for print. Focus on content, not formatting.

pdfmake

pdfmake, client/server side PDF printing in pure JavaScript.

Adobe Acrobat

Create, edit, and review PDFs. E-sign documents and collect signatures. Collaborate with your team. All in one app.

CloudConvert

Convert anything to anything - more than 200 different audio, video, document, ebook, archive, image, spreadsheet and presentation formats supported.

Ghostscript

It is a suite of software based on an interpreter for Adobe Systems' PostScript and PDF page description languages. Its main purposes are the rasterization or rendering of such page description language files.

Related Comparisons

WeasyPrint vs wkhtmltopdf: What are the differences?

Introduction

In this Markdown document, we will discuss the key differences between WeasyPrint and wkhtmltopdf, which are both tools used for converting HTML/CSS to PDF format.

1. Installation method: WeasyPrint can be installed using Python and has its own library, while wkhtmltopdf requires a separate installation process and is not specifically tied to a programming language.

2. Supported platforms: WeasyPrint is compatible with Windows, macOS, and Linux systems, ensuring cross-platform functionality, whereas wkhtmltopdf has limited support for Windows and Linux platforms, with limited compatibility on macOS.

3. Styling support: WeasyPrint provides extensive support for CSS level 2.1 and some features from CSS level 3, enabling advanced styling options for PDF generation. On the other hand, wkhtmltopdf has limited CSS support, often requiring workarounds or manual adjustments for complex designs.

4. JavaScript execution: WeasyPrint does not execute JavaScript during the conversion process, which can be a limitation for HTML/CSS files relying on JavaScript functionality. In contrast, wkhtmltopdf supports JavaScript execution, allowing dynamic elements and interactivity in the resulting PDF.

5. Header and footer customization: WeasyPrint offers more flexibility in customizing headers and footers, empowering users to design and control these sections with HTML/CSS. In comparison, wkhtmltopdf has limitations in header and footer customization, making it harder to achieve complex layouts or interactive elements in these areas.

6. Memory usage: WeasyPrint generally consumes less memory during the conversion process, making it more efficient for converting large HTML/CSS files or dealing with limited memory resources. Conversely, wkhtmltopdf can have higher memory usage, which may impact performance when handling complex designs or bulky files.

WeasyPrint vs wkhtmltopdf

Overview

WeasyPrint vs wkhtmltopdf: What are the differences?

Introduction

1. Installation method: WeasyPrint can be installed using Python and has its own library, while wkhtmltopdf requires a separate installation process and is not specifically tied to a programming language.

2. Supported platforms: WeasyPrint is compatible with Windows, macOS, and Linux systems, ensuring cross-platform functionality, whereas wkhtmltopdf has limited support for Windows and Linux platforms, with limited compatibility on macOS.

3. Styling support: WeasyPrint provides extensive support for CSS level 2.1 and some features from CSS level 3, enabling advanced styling options for PDF generation. On the other hand, wkhtmltopdf has limited CSS support, often requiring workarounds or manual adjustments for complex designs.