PDF Library Scorecard

Compare Java PDF libraries - which is right for you

Table of Contents

Instructions

Use this scorecard to objectively evaluate PDF libraries against your specific requirements. Rate each library 0–5 for each criterion, multiply by your weight, then sum the total scores.

  1. Set weights (1–5) based on importance to your project
  2. Score each library (0–5) on how well it meets each criterion
  3. Calculate weighted scores (Score × Weight)
  4. Sum totals for each library
  5. Compare — highest score indicates best fit

Feature Requirements (Maximum 175 points)

Criterion Weight (1–5) Library A Score Library A Weighted Library B Score Library B Weighted Library C Score Library C Weighted
PDF Creation / Generation
Generate PDFs from scratch, templates
PDF Viewing / Display
Built-in viewer, interactive display
Text Extraction
Extract text content accurately
Image Extraction
Extract embedded images
Form Handling
Read/write form data
PDF/A Compliance
Archival standard support
Digital Signatures
Sign and verify PDFs
Rendering Quality
Accurate visual rendering
Performance / Speed
Fast processing
Edge Case Handling
Handles malformed PDFs
Feature Requirements Subtotal

Technical Fit (Maximum 125 points)

Criterion Weight (1–5) Library A Score Library A Weighted Library B Score Library B Weighted Library C Score Library C Weighted
Pure Java / No Native Dependencies
Deployment simplicity
Deployment Simplicity
Container/cloud friendly
Integration Ease
Fits with existing stack
Memory Efficiency
Low memory footprint
Thread Safety
Supports concurrency
API Quality
Clear, consistent API
Documentation Quality
Comprehensive docs
Technical Fit Subtotal

Business Factors (Maximum 200 points)

Criterion Weight (1–5) Library A Score Library A Weighted Library B Score Library B Weighted Library C Score Library C Weighted
Licensing Compatibility
Works with our business model
Cost Within Budget
Upfront + ongoing costs acceptable
Support Quality
Responsive, expert support
Support Availability
Support actually available
Vendor Stability
Company longevity, health
Active Development
Regular updates, new features
Community Size
Resources, examples available
Migration Risk
Low risk if we need to switch
Business Factors Subtotal

Total Scores

Library A Library B Library C
Feature Requirements
Technical Fit
Business Factors
TOTAL SCORE

Maximum Possible Score: 500 points

Scoring Guidelines

Score Label Description
0Does Not SupportThe library completely lacks this feature or fails this criterion.
1PoorFeature exists but is severely limited, buggy, or inadequate for production use.
2BasicMinimum viable implementation. Works for simple cases but struggles with complexity.
3GoodSolid implementation that handles most use cases well. Some limitations in edge cases.
4Very GoodComprehensive implementation with few limitations. Handles edge cases well.
5ExcellentBest-in-class implementation. Comprehensive, robust, well-documented, handles all cases.

Example Weight Scenarios

Document Viewer Application

High weights (4–5):

  • PDF Viewing/Display (5)
  • Rendering Quality (5)
  • Edge Case Handling (4)
  • Pure Java (4)
  • Support Quality (4)

Low weights (1–2):

  • PDF Creation (1)
  • PDF/A Compliance (1)

Invoice Generation Service

High weights (4–5):

  • PDF Creation (5)
  • Performance/Speed (5)
  • Cost Within Budget (4)
  • Active Development (4)

Low weights (1–2):

  • Viewing/Display (1)
  • Community Size (2)

Regulated Industry (Finance / Healthcare)

High weights (4–5):

  • Support Quality (5)
  • Support Availability (5)
  • Vendor Stability (5)
  • Edge Case Handling (4)
  • PDF/A Compliance (4)

Low weights (1–2):

  • Cost Within Budget (2)
  • Community Size (1)

Next Steps After Scoring

If scores are close (within 20 points)

  • Run hands-on POC with both libraries
  • Test with your actual PDFs
  • Evaluate support responsiveness

If one library scores significantly higher

  • Verify top criteria are scored accurately
  • Run POC to confirm scores match reality
  • Proceed with implementation

If all libraries score low

  • Reassess requirements (are they realistic?)
  • Consider building a custom solution
  • Look for libraries not yet evaluated

Common Mistakes to Avoid

❌ Treating all criteria equally — Use weights to reflect real priorities.
❌ Scoring based on marketing claims — Score based on POC testing and documentation review.
❌ Ignoring business factors — Technical perfection doesn't matter if support is terrible.
❌ Not testing with real PDFs — Samples work great; production PDFs reveal the truth.
❌ Forgetting total cost — A "free" library that costs 40 hours/year debugging isn't free.

Need help evaluating?

Contact our team — we can provide guidance even if JPedal isn't the right fit for you.