pdfGoHTML
Free Acrobat plug-in that renders a tagged PDF as structured HTML, so a person can judge its accessibility and tagging.
Jobs Accessibility
Operated by callas software GmbH
Where your files are processed
No server involved
An Acrobat plug-in: the PDF is opened and converted to HTML inside your own copy of Acrobat, on your own machine. The account the vendor requires gates the download, not the processing.
It is an Acrobat plug-in, so it inspects documents inside the host application on the machine that runs it. What the plug-in transmits is not something this review established either way, so the record does not claim that nothing is sent anywhere. Host compatibility and licence dependencies are prerequisites to verify rather than things to assume: the documentation describes the free plug-in but not which Acrobat editions or versions carry it.
What it does
pdfGoHTML opens a PDF, says immediately whether it is tagged, and converts it to HTML so you can see the structure rather than infer it. The exported page has several views — the browser's default, one that exposes the structure tags, an easy-reader view, inverted, low-vision and dyslexia-friendly presentations — and the structure-tags view is the interesting one: it shows where the tagging needs work. It is the tool for the half of accessibility that no checker can do, because a document can pass every automated test and still be unusable to a screen reader.
Best for: Anyone who has to decide whether a document's tagging is meaningful rather than merely present: accessibility specialists reviewing a supplier's output, and teams who have run a checker, been told the document passes, and still want to see what a reader would actually get.
Worth knowing: It is an inspection aid, not a validator. It does not check a document against PDF/UA or WCAG and it will not tell you whether a document passes anything — it shows you the structure and leaves the judgement to you, which is the point but also the limit. It only becomes useful on a tagged PDF: it indicates whether a file is tagged, and an untagged scan gives it nothing to inspect, so it is not a starting point for remediation. It is an Adobe Acrobat plug-in, so it needs Acrobat installed, and it is one of the few free things here that still requires an account: the download link is behind a sign-up. The account requirement is about obtaining the download rather than about running it: nothing in the documentation establishes that signing in is needed while the plug-in inspects a document, so the field says what it can support and no more.
Details, and where each comes from
Vendor statements, our own reading of their pages, and the things nobody has established yet, each answered separately. Where we have not confirmed something it says so rather than guessing, and a row nobody has established is greyed out.
- Versions covered
- Windows · macOS
- Website
- callassoftware.com
- Requires an account
- Yes
- Watermark on the free tier
- Not verified
- Maximum file size
- Not verified
- Batch processing
- Not verified
- Data residency
- Self-hosted
- Open source
- No
- Self-hostable
- Yes
- Licence
- Free to download and use; an account is required for the download link
- Redaction
- No redaction feature
- Programmatic access
- None
- Last availability check
- Responded in 352 ms 16 October 2026
Checked automatically by our own runner, not reported by the vendor. 100% of our last 30 checks got a response.
What the redaction verdict rests on
From the vendor's own documentation, read 22 September 2026. Not tested by us.
What that does not establish: Recorded as `none` on absence: the product page describes converting tagged PDF into HTML for inspection, with several display views, and never mentions redaction or removing content. This is the easiest absence in the batch to be confident about, because the tool writes HTML and does not write PDF at all — there is no output document in which content could be left behind. What it does not establish: anything about the other callas products, which are separately licensed and separately recorded.
What the vendor says
Claims are labelled rather than repeated as fact. Where we have checked something ourselves, it says so and shows when. Checked means we read the vendor's own page and it says what we recorded — not that we tested the behaviour, unless the note says we did.
-
“Technical compliance alone is not sufficient if structure, language, or reading order do not reflect how humans read content.”
Checked by us — the source says this Read 1 October 2026
Confirmed. The quoted text appears in the rendered page as read on 2026-10-01. This claim was carried as reported rather than checked until this read.
Standing: Not re-read against the live source
Check it yourself: the source, the SHA-256, and how we checked
- From
- the text a browser renders
- SHA-256
- 64ee50634953815032642a2c7f2a5eb9943bdb7758764a0de15328442c27b411
How we checked: Read as rendered text in headless Chrome on 2026-10-01 and saved to the evidence archive, so the read can be repeated against the same file. Comparison ignores case, punctuation and hyphenation, which is why "open-source" on the record matches "open source" on the page.
Each claim is quoted from the vendor's own pages. This section describes what we have and have not checked — it is not a judgement about anyone.
Sponsorship is distribution, not an endorsement or a promise of search rankings, AI citations, traffic, or sales. This listing is a free entry, compiled from published sources.
Related reading
- Checking a PDF for accessibility — what makes a PDF accessible, and how it is checked.
- Which PDF tools keep your file on your machine — what we count as processing on your own device.