Self-hosted PDF

SnapOtter vs Stirling-PDF

Stirling-PDF and SnapOtter are both self-hosted and open source, so files stay on your server either way. The difference is scope: Stirling-PDF focuses on PDFs, while SnapOtter spans all five file types.

SnapOtter vs Stirling-PDF

  SnapOtter Stirling-PDF
Self-hosted Yes Yes
Open source Yes, AGPLv3 Yes
Primary focus Full file workflow across five types PDF workflows
Tool count 200+ 60+ PDF operations
Local AI (OCR, transcription, upscaling) OCR, transcription, upscaling, and more PDF-oriented OCR workflows
Layer-based image editor Yes Not its focus
Pipelines and batch processing Yes PDF automation workflows

Last reviewed July 1, 2026. Comparison uses publicly available vendor pages and focuses on deployment model, file location, auditability, and workflow fit. Vendor features and plans change; check current docs before deciding. SnapOtter is not affiliated with Stirling-PDF.

One stack, all five file types

If you only ever touch PDFs, Stirling-PDF is excellent and worth a look. If you also resize images, convert video, transcribe audio, or batch files, SnapOtter handles all of it in one deployment instead of running several tools side by side.

Frequently asked questions

Is SnapOtter a replacement for Stirling-PDF?
It can be, if you want one stack for more than PDFs. SnapOtter's PDF coverage is broad, and it adds image, video, audio, and file tools. For a PDF-only setup, Stirling-PDF is a solid, focused choice.
Are both free and open source?
Both projects are open source and self-hostable. SnapOtter is AGPLv3 and adds an optional paid enterprise tier for SSO, audit logging, and similar controls.

Run it on your own server

200+ tools across image, video, audio, PDF, and files. Open source, free forever, and your files never leave your network.

Deploying this across a team?

Audit trails, per-tool permissions, SSO, and air-gapped deployment for regulated environments. Talk to us about running SnapOtter as shared infrastructure.