Pros of qpdf

• Written in C++, offering potentially better performance for low-level PDF operations
• Provides a command-line interface for quick PDF manipulations
• Longer development history, potentially more stable and feature-complete

Cons of qpdf

• Less Pythonic API, which may be less intuitive for Python developers
• Requires separate installation and management of C++ dependencies
• May have a steeper learning curve for those primarily working in Python

Code Comparison

qpdf (C++):

QPDF pdf;
pdf.processFile("input.pdf");
QPDFWriter w(pdf, "output.pdf");
w.write();

pikepdf (Python):

with pikepdf.Pdf.open("input.pdf") as pdf:
    pdf.save("output.pdf")

pikepdf provides a more Pythonic and concise API for PDF manipulation, while qpdf offers lower-level control and potentially better performance for complex operations. pikepdf is built on top of qpdf, leveraging its core functionality while providing a more accessible interface for Python developers. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of the project, programming language preference, and the level of PDF manipulation needed.

Pros of PyMuPDF

• Broader functionality, including support for various document formats beyond PDF
• More comprehensive documentation and examples
• Faster rendering and processing for certain operations

Cons of PyMuPDF

• Larger library size and potentially higher memory usage
• More complex API, which may have a steeper learning curve
• Licensing restrictions (GNU GPL) may limit commercial use

Code Comparison

PyMuPDF:

import fitz
doc = fitz.open("example.pdf")
page = doc[0]
text = page.get_text()

pikepdf:

from pikepdf import Pdf
pdf = Pdf.open("example.pdf")
page = pdf.pages[0]
text = page.extract_text()

Both libraries offer similar basic functionality for opening and extracting text from PDF files. PyMuPDF uses the fitz module, while pikepdf uses its own namespace. PyMuPDF's API is slightly more concise in this example, but pikepdf's approach may be more intuitive for some users.

Pros of PyPDF

• Pure Python implementation, making it easier to install and use across different platforms
• More extensive documentation and examples for various PDF operations
• Larger community and longer history, potentially leading to better support and resources

Cons of PyPDF

• Generally slower performance compared to PikePDF, especially for large PDF files
• Less robust handling of complex PDF structures and features
• Limited support for some advanced PDF operations and modifications

Code Comparison

PyPDF:

from pypdf import PdfReader, PdfWriter

reader = PdfReader("input.pdf")
writer = PdfWriter()

for page in reader.pages:
    writer.add_page(page)

writer.write("output.pdf")

PikePDF:

from pikepdf import Pdf

with Pdf.open("input.pdf") as pdf:
    pdf.save("output.pdf")

PikePDF's code is more concise for simple operations like copying a PDF. However, both libraries offer more complex functionality for specific tasks, and the code complexity may vary depending on the operation.

Pros of iText

• More comprehensive PDF manipulation capabilities, including creation, editing, and digital signatures
• Extensive documentation and commercial support options
• Wider language support, including Java, .NET, and Android

Cons of iText

• Commercial licensing required for many use cases
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex API
• Larger library size and potential performance overhead

Code Comparison

iText (Java):

PdfDocument pdf = new PdfDocument(new PdfWriter(dest));
Document document = new Document(pdf);
document.add(new Paragraph("Hello World!"));
document.close();

pikepdf (Python):

pdf = pikepdf.Pdf.new()
page = pdf.add_blank_page()
page.add_text("Hello World!")
pdf.save("output.pdf")

Summary

iText is a more feature-rich PDF library with broader language support and commercial backing, while pikepdf is a lightweight, Python-focused alternative. iText offers more advanced capabilities but comes with licensing considerations and a steeper learning curve. pikepdf provides a simpler API for basic PDF operations, making it easier to use for straightforward tasks. The choice between the two depends on the specific project requirements, language preferences, and licensing considerations.

Pros of PDFBox

• Written in Java, offering better platform independence and integration with Java ecosystems
• More comprehensive feature set for PDF manipulation, including digital signatures and form filling
• Larger community and longer development history, potentially leading to better stability and support

Cons of PDFBox

• Generally slower performance compared to pikepdf, especially for large PDF files
• More complex API, which can lead to steeper learning curve and longer development time
• Larger memory footprint, which may be a concern for resource-constrained environments

Code Comparison

PDFBox:

PDDocument document = PDDocument.load(new File("input.pdf"));
PDFTextStripper stripper = new PDFTextStripper();
String text = stripper.getText(document);
document.close();

pikepdf:

pdf = pikepdf.Pdf.open("input.pdf")
text = ""
for page in pdf.pages:
    text += page.get_contents().read_bytes().decode()

Both examples demonstrate opening a PDF file and extracting text content. PDFBox uses a more object-oriented approach with separate classes for document and text extraction, while pikepdf offers a more concise, Pythonic syntax.