html4pdf vs ReportLab
ReportLab has been the serious answer in Python for twenty years, and it is still excellent. The comparison is not about quality, it is about who edits the layout.
The short answer
ReportLab is the right tool when the document is a fixed, precise artefact and you want no dependencies. It is the wrong tool when the design changes often, because every change is a code change.
What ReportLab is
ReportLab builds PDFs programmatically: you place text, lines, tables and images with a drawing API, or compose a document with its Platypus layout engine. Output is exact, it is fast, it has no system dependencies, and the open source version is widely used in production. It does not take HTML.
Side by side
| ReportLab | html4pdf | |
|---|---|---|
| What you write | Python: canvases, flowables, styles | The HTML and CSS you already have |
| Precision | Absolute, you place everything | Whatever the browser lays out |
| Who can change the design | A Python developer | Anyone who can edit a template |
| HTML input | No | Yes |
| Charts | Its own charting library | Any JavaScript chart library |
| Dependencies | None beyond pip | An HTTPS call |
| Speed | Very fast | Three to five seconds including the round trip |
| Cost | Free | From $0.033 per document |
Choose ReportLab when
- The layout is fixed, precise and rarely changes: labels, certificates, regulated forms.
- You need exact control over position, down to the point.
- Nothing may leave the process, and no new dependency is acceptable.
- Volume is high and the document is simple.
Choose html4pdf when
- The document already exists as a web page and should look like it.
- The design changes often, and each change currently means a pull request.
- Someone other than a developer should be able to edit the template.
- The page needs a chart or a layout that would take a day to draw by hand.
See the code
The working example, in the language this decision is being made in.
ReportLab: common questions
Can ReportLab convert HTML to PDF?
Not directly. It draws documents from code. Projects like xhtml2pdf put a small HTML layer on top of it, but that layer implements its own limited CSS rather than acting as a browser.
ReportLab or WeasyPrint?
WeasyPrint if your document is already HTML and CSS without scripts. ReportLab if you want to build the document in Python with exact control and no markup involved.
Is ReportLab free?
The open source library is, under a permissive licence, and it is what most projects use. There is also a commercial product built on top of it.
Which is faster?
ReportLab, comfortably. It is drawing directly rather than laying out a page in a browser, with no network involved.
Try it before you decide
New accounts get 10 free credits, no card. Send the HTML you already have and compare the output against whatever you are using now.
Other comparisons
- html4pdf vs PuppeteerRun Puppeteer yourself if PDFs are high volume and you already operate containers. Use an API if PDFs are a feature of your product and you do not want Chrome in your deployment.
- html4pdf vs wkhtmltopdfwkhtmltopdf is still fine for simple documents you already have working. For anything new, or anything using modern CSS, its archived WebKit engine is the problem you will eventually hit.
- html4pdf vs WeasyPrintIf your document is HTML and CSS with no scripts, WeasyPrint is excellent and free, and you should use it. If anything on the page is drawn by JavaScript, you need a browser.
- html4pdf vs DompdfDompdf is the right answer for a simple document on shared hosting with no extra services. It is the wrong answer for anything designed with modern CSS, because it implements CSS 2.1.
- html4pdf vs jsPDF and html2canvasjsPDF with html2canvas is free and needs no backend, and it produces a picture of your page rather than a document. If the text has to be selectable, searchable or printable at quality, it is the wrong tool.
- html4pdf vs @react-pdf/rendererUse react-pdf when the document is small, stable, and worth building as its own component tree. Use a renderer when the PDF should be the same thing your users already see on screen.
- html4pdf vs printing from the browserIf the user is the one who wants the PDF and is sitting in front of the page, use window.print() and a print stylesheet. If your system needs the file, you need a renderer.
- html4pdf vs PlaywrightPlaywright is the better browser automation library. It is not a better PDF pipeline, because the cost was never the library: it is operating the browser. Use it if you already run it, call an API if you do not.
- html4pdf vs running Chromium in a LambdaIt works, it is free, and it is the single most fiddly part of most codebases that do it. If your function is already near the size limit or your users wait on the first request, the trade has stopped paying.
- html4pdf vs GotenbergGotenberg is the right answer if you want this capability inside your own infrastructure and have somewhere to run a container. We are the right answer if you want it without running anything.
- html4pdf vs mPDFmPDF is the best free answer in PHP for long, table-heavy documents written as documents. It is still its own engine, so a design built in a browser will not arrive intact.
- html4pdf vs iTextIf you need deep PDF manipulation on the JVM and can accept AGPL or buy a licence, iText is the strongest tool available. If you only need HTML turned into a document, the licence question is one you can skip entirely.
- html4pdf vs QuestPDFQuestPDF is excellent for documents you are happy to describe in C#. If the document already exists as a web page, you would be rebuilding it, and that duplication is the whole cost.
- html4pdf vs PDFKitPDFKit is a good fit for simple, fixed documents generated at volume, where no browser and no network is worth writing the layout by hand. Beyond that the hand-written layout becomes the problem.