Pros of itext-dotnet

• More comprehensive PDF manipulation capabilities, including advanced features like digital signatures and PDF/A compliance
• Better documentation and commercial support options
• Actively maintained with regular updates and bug fixes

Cons of itext-dotnet

• Commercial licensing required for many use cases, which can be costly
• Steeper learning curve due to its extensive feature set
• Larger library size, potentially increasing application footprint

Code Comparison

itext-dotnet:

using iText.Kernel.Pdf;
using iText.Layout;
using iText.Layout.Element;

using var writer = new PdfWriter("output.pdf");
using var pdf = new PdfDocument(writer);
using var document = new Document(pdf);
document.Add(new Paragraph("Hello, World!"));

PdfSharpCore:

using PdfSharpCore.Pdf;
using PdfSharpCore.Drawing;

using var document = new PdfDocument();
var page = document.AddPage();
using var gfx = XGraphics.FromPdfPage(page);
gfx.DrawString("Hello, World!", new XFont("Arial", 12), XBrushes.Black, 20, 20);
document.Save("output.pdf");

Both libraries offer PDF creation capabilities, but itext-dotnet provides a more structured approach with separate Document and Element classes, while PdfSharpCore uses a more direct drawing approach. itext-dotnet is generally more suitable for complex PDF manipulation tasks, while PdfSharpCore is lighter and easier to use for simpler PDF generation scenarios.

Pros of ImageProcessor

• Focuses specifically on image processing tasks, offering a wide range of image manipulation features
• Provides a fluent API for easy chaining of image processing operations
• Supports various image formats and color spaces

Cons of ImageProcessor

• Limited to image processing, lacking PDF-related functionality
• May have a steeper learning curve for users primarily interested in PDF manipulation
• Less actively maintained compared to PdfSharpCore

Code Comparison

ImageProcessor:

using (var image = new ImageFactory())
{
    image.Load(sourceImage)
         .Resize(new Size(150, 0))
         .Format(new JpegFormat { Quality = 70 })
         .Save(destImage);
}

PdfSharpCore:

using (var document = new PdfDocument())
{
    var page = document.AddPage();
    var gfx = XGraphics.FromPdfPage(page);
    var font = new XFont("Arial", 20, XFontStyle.Bold);
    gfx.DrawString("Hello, World!", font, XBrushes.Black, 20, 20);
    document.Save("document.pdf");
}

The code examples demonstrate the different focus areas of each library. ImageProcessor provides a straightforward way to manipulate images, while PdfSharpCore offers tools for creating and modifying PDF documents.

Pros of ImageSharp

• Broader image processing capabilities, including resizing, filtering, and drawing
• Active development with frequent updates and improvements
• Extensive documentation and community support

Cons of ImageSharp

• Focused solely on image processing, lacking PDF-specific functionality
• May require additional libraries for PDF-related tasks
• Potentially higher resource usage for simple image operations

Code Comparison

ImageSharp:

using SixLabors.ImageSharp;
using SixLabors.ImageSharp.Processing;

using (Image image = Image.Load("input.jpg"))
{
    image.Mutate(x => x.Resize(256, 256));
    image.Save("output.jpg");
}

PdfSharpCore:

using PdfSharpCore.Drawing;
using PdfSharpCore.Pdf;

using (var document = new PdfDocument())
{
    var page = document.AddPage();
    var gfx = XGraphics.FromPdfPage(page);
    gfx.DrawImage(XImage.FromFile("input.jpg"), 0, 0);
    document.Save("output.pdf");
}

Summary

ImageSharp excels in general image processing tasks, offering a wide range of features and active development. PdfSharpCore, on the other hand, specializes in PDF manipulation with built-in support for creating and modifying PDF documents. While ImageSharp provides more comprehensive image editing capabilities, PdfSharpCore is better suited for PDF-specific tasks. The choice between the two depends on the primary focus of your project: image processing or PDF manipulation.

Pros of QuestPDF

• Fluent API design for easier and more intuitive PDF creation
• Built-in support for various document elements like tables, charts, and images
• Active development with frequent updates and community support

Cons of QuestPDF

• Relatively newer project with potentially fewer resources and examples
• May have a steeper learning curve for developers familiar with older PDF libraries

Code Comparison

QuestPDF:

Document.Create(container =>
{
    container.Page(page =>
    {
        page.Content().PaddingVertical(50).Column(column =>
        {
            column.Item().Text("Hello World!").FontSize(36);
        });
    });
});

PdfSharpCore:

PdfDocument document = new PdfDocument();
PdfPage page = document.AddPage();
XGraphics gfx = XGraphics.FromPdfPage(page);
XFont font = new XFont("Arial", 36);
gfx.DrawString("Hello World!", font, XBrushes.Black, 20, 50);

Both libraries offer PDF creation capabilities, but QuestPDF provides a more modern and fluent approach, while PdfSharpCore follows a more traditional drawing-based method. QuestPDF's syntax is generally more concise and readable, but PdfSharpCore may offer more fine-grained control over document elements.