@react-pdf/renderer vs jspdf
Side-by-side comparison of @react-pdf/renderer and jspdf
- Weekly Downloads
- 1.7M
- Stars
- 16.4K
- Gzip Size
- —
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 1d ago
- Open Issues
- 442
- Forks
- 1.3K
- Unpacked Size
- 265.7 kB
- Dependencies
- —
- Weekly Downloads
- 8.8M
- Stars
- 31.1K
- Gzip Size
- 241.5 kB
- License
- MIT
- Last Updated
- 3d ago
- Open Issues
- 112
- Forks
- 4.8K
- Unpacked Size
- 30.1 MB
- Dependencies
- 11
Download Trends
Verdict
Both @react-pdf/renderer and jspdf are solid tools for creating PDFs, but they cater to slightly different needs within the JavaScript ecosystem. @react-pdf/renderer excels in supporting React applications and offers a lightweight solution for generating PDFs in a format that is familiar to React developers. On the other hand, jspdf is more versatile in terms of the broader JavaScript environment and is designed for straightforward PDF generation from JavaScript without specifically relying on React.
When deciding between the two, consider your project needs and your team's expertise. If your team has a strong background in React and you're building a project that requires seamless integration with React components, @react-pdf/renderer may be the optimal choice. Conversely, if you're looking for a more general-purpose solution to create PDFs across a variety of web projects, jspdf might serve you better, especially for larger projects given your workload since it has higher download numbers and a wider adoption.
Developers using @react-pdf/renderer will benefit from its focused approach but may find the learning curve a bit steeper if they are not familiar with React. Conversely, jspdf's larger file size might be a consideration, but its broader applicability could justify the trade-off for teams aiming for more flexibility in their PDF generation tasks.
Detailed Comparison
| Criteria | @react-pdf/renderer | jspdf |
|---|---|---|
| License | Both packages are licensed under MIT, providing flexibility for use. | Both packages are licensed under MIT, providing flexibility for use. |
| Niche Focus | Tailored specifically for React, making it ideal for React-centric applications. | ✓More generic, making it suitable for a variety of JavaScript applications outside of React. |
| Open Issues | 442 open issues may indicate areas for improvement and active development challenges. | ✓112 open issues suggest a more stable feature set with fewer hassles for users. |
| GitHub Forks | 1.3K forks indicate a decent level of community activity and customization. | ✓4.8K forks suggest stronger collaborative development and adaptation. |
| GitHub Stars | 16.4K stars indicate a respectable level of interest among developers. | ✓31.1K stars suggest a higher endorsement from the broader community. |
| Unpacked Size | ✓At 265.7 kB, it is relatively lightweight for applications focused on React. | At 30.1 MB, it is substantially larger, which might be a consideration for loading times. |
| Target Use Case | Best for projects heavily utilizing React and requiring advanced PDF layout features. | ✓Best for simpler PDF generation needs across various types of web applications. |
| Integration Ease | Easy to integrate within React applications but may have a steeper learning curve. | ✓Simplicity in integration within any JavaScript environment makes it accessible for all developers. |
| Weekly Downloads | With 1.7M downloads, it has a solid following among React developers. | ✓With 8.8M downloads, it shows stronger overall popularity in the JavaScript community. |
| Bundle Size (gzip) | No specific gzip size provided, making direct comparison difficult. | ✓241.5 kB gzip size suggests a relatively manageable overhead for a feature-rich library. |