RaptorPDF vs iLovePDF: Full 2026 Comparison
We make one of these two, so here is the summary you would get from someone who did not: iLovePDF has more tools and better versions of the heavy ones, RaptorPDF never receives your file, and for a large majority of everyday jobs both will do the work fine. The interesting part is the specific tasks where the difference is not a preference but a hard limit, and that is what this page is for.
In This Comparison
The architectural difference
iLovePDF runs its processing on servers. RaptorPDF runs its processing in the page, using pdf.js to render and pdf-lib to write. That single fact produces every other difference between them, in both directions.
Because iLovePDF has a server, it can parse a PDF's object graph and downsample individual embedded images, run an industrial conversion stack, repair a corrupt file, and offer an API. Because RaptorPDF does not have one, it cannot do any of those things, and also cannot receive your document.
You can verify which is which without trusting either of us. Open developer tools, go to the Network tab, clear it, and run one operation. A server tool sends a request roughly the size of your file; a local tool sends nothing. Then load the page, switch off your network, and try again: the local tool keeps working.
What each one actually does, corrected
Older versions of this page overstated our side, so the specifics are worth stating carefully.
Where RaptorPDF is genuinely equal or better
- Merge, split, extract, delete, reorder, rotate. These copy the original page objects into a new document, so nothing is re-rendered and the output is as good as the input. Fast, because there is no upload round trip.
- Annotating, signing, watermarking, page numbers. Drawn straight onto the page and flattened at download, which means the markup is permanent and cannot be deleted by whoever opens the file next.
- Password protection and unlocking. AES-128 through the PDF standard security handler, applied locally. See the caveat below.
- Form filling. AcroForm fields are read out of the PDF, listed in a panel, filled and flattened.
Where we previously claimed too much
- We do not edit existing PDF text. You can place new text on top of a page. You cannot click into an existing paragraph and change a word. iLovePDF's editor is closer to this and Sejda's is closer still; full Acrobat is the reliable answer.
- Our signature is not a digital signature. It is a drawn, typed or uploaded image placed on the page. There is no certificate, no tamper-evident seal and no audit trail. That is fine for routine paperwork and not fine where a signature might be disputed.
- Optical character recognition exists but is limited. It runs inside the PDF-to-Word converter, using Tesseract in your browser with English and Turkish language data and a ninety second ceiling per page. It produces a Word file, not a searchable PDF. On a few clean pages it works; on fifty messy ones a server-side engine will beat it comfortably.
- Our compression is cruder. It renders each page and re-embeds it as a JPEG, which is right for scans and wrong for text documents, where it destroys the text layer and can produce a larger file. A server tool can compress the images alone and leave the text as text. This is the clearest single technical advantage iLovePDF has.
- Password protection has a real weakness. We set the owner password to the same value as the user password, so the printing and copying restriction switches are advisory: anyone who can open the document also holds the owner password and can remove the restrictions.
- Redaction covers rather than removes. The black rectangle is drawn over the page; the text object underneath survives and can be extracted.
- There is no metadata editor at all.
- HEIC input depends on your browser, not on us. Photos from an iPhone convert fine in Safari, because macOS and iOS can decode HEIC. In Chrome on Windows they usually will not load, because the browser has no HEIC decoder. A server tool does the decoding itself and so does not have this problem.
What iLovePDF has that no browser tool can match
- Repairing damaged PDFs, which requires heuristics over a broken object graph.
- Conversion to Excel and PowerPoint, and from them.
- PDF/A output for archival requirements.
- Bates numbering.
- Optical character recognition at real volume.
- An API, and batch processing on paid plans.
Speed, and where each falls over
For a small file, local processing wins on wall-clock time simply because there is no upload and download. For a large one it loses, and not marginally. A browser has to hold the whole document in the tab, several times over once pages are rendered, so the failure mode on a very large scan is a frozen or reloaded tab rather than a helpful error message. Our plans cap files at 50 MB free and 300 MB on Pro, but on a phone the real limit arrives well before either figure.
Sustained work is the other asymmetry. Character recognition on a 300-page document means 300 page renders and 300 recognition passes on your own processor. A server farm parallelises that. You do not.
Offline is the case where there is no contest: load the RaptorPDF page once and it keeps working with the network off, because everything it needs is already in the page. iLovePDF cannot work offline by construction.
Pricing
| Plan | RaptorPDF | iLovePDF |
|---|---|---|
| Free tier | 3 operations/day, files up to 50MB, counted at download | Per-task file size cap; check their current figure |
| Paid plan | $4.99/month or $39.99/year, 300MB files, no operation cap | Monthly and annual premium tiers; see their pricing page |
| Watermark on free | No watermark | No watermark |
| Account required | Never | Not for basic tools |
One detail that matters more than the headline figure: our operations are counted when you download, not when you use a tool. The editor lets you chain work in one session, so merging four files, stamping page numbers and compressing the result costs one operation rather than three. Doing the same work as three separate downloads uses up a free day. We are not quoting iLovePDF's prices here because they change and a stale number in a comparison article is worse than no number.
Full side-by-side comparison
| Capability | RaptorPDF | iLovePDF |
|---|---|---|
| File uploaded to a server | Never | Yes |
| Works with the network off | Yes, after page load | No |
| Merge, split, reorder, rotate | Yes, lossless page copy | Yes |
| Edit existing PDF text | No, overlay only | Limited editor |
| Annotate and highlight | Yes, flattened into the page | Yes |
| Compression quality | Page rasterisation only | Image-level, keeps text as text |
| Optical character recognition | In-browser, to Word only, slow | Yes, server-side |
| PDF to Word | Yes | Yes |
| PDF to Excel or PowerPoint | No | Yes |
| Repair a damaged PDF | No | Yes |
| PDF/A archival output | No | Yes |
| Password protect | Yes, AES-128, local | Yes |
| Permission flags actually enforced | No, owner password equals user password | Depends on their implementation |
| Fill AcroForm fields | Yes, then flattened | Yes |
| Place a signature | Draw, type or upload | Yes |
| Certificate-based digital signature | No | No |
| True redaction that removes content | No, covers only | No |
| Edit document metadata | No | Partial |
| API and batch automation | No | Yes |
| Very large files | Limited by your device's memory | Handled server-side |
| iOS app | Yes | Yes |
Which to use, by task
Use RaptorPDF
- The document is confidential, or belongs to a client, patient or employee.
- Your employer or institution restricts uploads to unapproved external services. This is the most common reason people end up here, and it is a policy question rather than a technical one.
- You are assembling, signing, filling or protecting documents rather than transforming them.
- You are offline, on a locked-down machine, or on a Chromebook.
- You want markup that the recipient cannot remove.
Use iLovePDF
- You need to compress a text-heavy document and keep the text selectable. Our tool cannot do this and theirs can.
- You need optical character recognition on more than a handful of pages.
- You need Excel or PowerPoint conversion, PDF/A, Bates numbering, file repair or an API.
- The file is large enough that a browser tab is the wrong place for it.
- The document is not sensitive, in which case the broader tool set is simply better and privacy is not a live consideration.
Use neither
- Editing text inside an existing PDF. Sejda in a browser, Acrobat on the desktop, or LibreOffice Draw if you can accept imperfect layout fidelity.
- Real redaction. Neither of these removes content objects. Buy software that does.
- A signature that has to hold up in a dispute. A dedicated e-signature service with an audit trail, or certificate-based signing software.
Open the editor and watch the Network tab
Merge, split, sign, fill and protect PDFs in the page. Three operations a day free, files to 50 MB, no watermark, no account.
Open RaptorPDFFrequently Asked Questions
Is RaptorPDF better than iLovePDF?
It is better at one thing: not receiving your file. iLovePDF is better at compression that preserves text, at optical character recognition, at format coverage, and at large files. If your documents are sensitive, the first thing outweighs the rest. If they are not, iLovePDF is the more capable product and we would rather say so than pretend otherwise.
What does RaptorPDF's free plan allow?
Three operations per day with files up to 50MB, every tool included, no watermark and no account. Operations are counted at download, so chaining several tools in one session costs one operation. Pro is $4.99 a month or $39.99 a year and raises the file ceiling to 300MB with no operation cap.
Can RaptorPDF edit the text in my PDF?
No. It places new text on top of a page, which handles filling blanks and adding notes, but it cannot change a word in an existing paragraph. For that you need Sejda, Acrobat, or LibreOffice Draw.
Does RaptorPDF do OCR?
A limited version, inside the PDF-to-Word converter, using Tesseract in your browser with English and Turkish language data and a ninety second cap per page. It outputs a Word document rather than a searchable PDF. For volume or difficult scans, a server-side engine is considerably better.
Which one compresses better?
On a scan, they are comparable, and our grayscale option is often the single largest saving available. On a text document, iLovePDF wins clearly: it can compress the embedded images and leave the text as text, whereas we rasterise whole pages, which makes the text unsearchable and sometimes makes the file bigger.
Does iLovePDF upload my files?
Yes, that is how server-side processing works. Their retention window is short and published in their privacy policy. The window's length is not the deciding factor when the upload itself is the thing you were not permitted to do, which is the situation for patient records, client files and similar material.