Layout
Key difference- Lite (free)
- Yoga flexbox
- Pro
- Same
- pdfmake
- Column/stack-based

Compare
PaperJSX adds flexbox layout, HarfBuzz typography, digital signatures, AcroForms, encryption, and PDF/A-2a — capabilities that go beyond what pdfmake offers out of the box.
[01] Side by side
This keeps the focus on the PDF features that usually force teams beyond a lightweight library.
| Capability | Lite (free) | Pro | pdfmake |
|---|---|---|---|
| Layout | Yoga flexbox | Same | Column/stack-based |
| Typography | Basic font metrics | HarfBuzz WASM (CJK, RTL) | fontkit (basic OpenType) |
| Digital signatures | — | Yes (OpenSSL-verified) | — No |
| PDF/A | — | PDF/A-2a (veraPDF validated) | Basic via pdfkit |
| AcroForms | — | Fill (unsigned, unencrypted) | — No |
| Encryption | AES-128 | AES-256 | — No |
[02] The layout difference
pdfmake inherits a column-and-stack layout model from pdfkit. PaperJSX uses Yoga flexbox, which is the sharper difference when the PDF layout starts acting like a product surface instead of a simple export.
[03] The real tradeoff
Both can produce PDFs. The real decision is whether the workflow stays simple enough for a lightweight MIT library or needs stronger layout and downstream document features.
Governed PDF route
Best when the document needs stronger layout, signatures, forms, encryption, or archival output that will be checked later.
Lightweight PDF route
If the PDF is straightforward and browser-side, with no compliance, signing, or encryption requirements, a lighter library may be enough for now.
Try the playground with a real document layout. The difference in typography, structure, and compliance readiness shows up immediately.