Skip to content
dialegein

Pdftools PDF Viewer SDK

Client-side PDF viewer SDK for web and mobile, with true redaction built in.

Jobs View Edit

Operated by Apryse

Visit Pdftools PDF Viewer SDK

Opens the vendor's own site.

Jobs covered

Open a task to see exactly what the vendor documentation supports.

View Browse all view tools

viewing PDF documents with the Pdftools PDF Viewer SDK, a TypeScript and JavaScript library that renders PDFs directly on the client without a server-side PDF library, as the vendor's documentation describes: it renders documents with high fidelity, navigates pages, zooms and scrolls, configures fit mode and page layout mode, searches text and highlights and navigates search results, opens documents from a URL, a file or memory, saves and downloads them as PDF or FDF with or without changes, prints with configurable DPI, and exposes document metadata and page information; the documentation lists tested support for Chrome 63+, Edge 41+, Firefox 55+ and Safari 11.0.3+, support for PDF versions 1.3 through 1.7 and 2.0 including the PDF/A conformance levels named on the page, use in TypeScript and JavaScript applications built with React or Angular, and two npm packages, PDF Web Viewer for a ready-made toolbar-and-sidebar interface and PDF Web SDK for a headless document view, with plugins, CSS theming, event listeners and runtime localisation; the product page adds native deployment on Android and iOS, including offline and air-gapped use, and the licence documentation says no-licence use is view-only and watermarked with a 100 concurrent user ceiling while the trial and paid tiers are contact sales; the scope is the SDK's own client-side viewer rather than a browser's built-in PDF viewer and claims no server-side rendering

Edit Browse all edit tools

editing and annotating PDF documents with the Pdftools PDF Viewer SDK, where the vendor's documentation for version 5, current at 5.19.0 on 14 October 2026, lists adding, editing and deleting annotations of the types highlight, underline, strikeout, squiggly, sticky notes, free text, rectangles and ellipses, lines and arrows, ink, clouds, stamps and images; filling PDF form fields including text boxes, checkboxes, radio buttons and combo and list boxes; creating redaction annotations by selecting text or drawing areas and applying them to download a permanently redacted document; saving and downloading the result as PDF or FDF with or without changes; and extending the viewer with custom plugins, toolbar buttons, events, CSS theming and runtime localisation; the documented editing is annotation, form filling and redaction rather than editing existing page text, images or layout, and no general text or image editing, no form field creation and no document-level JavaScript editing is claimed

Where your files are processed

No server involved

A client-side SDK: it renders, annotates and redacts inside the browser or the mobile app, which is the vendor's whole pitch - "directly on the client without a server-side PDF library". No Pdftools service is in the path. That is a property of the library itself: what an application built with it does with your file depends on that application, not on this.

Entirely client-side: the vendor's pitch is to work with PDFs "directly on the client without a server-side PDF library", and it documents self-contained deployment in air-gapped environments including iOS and Android devices. There is no Pdftools service in the path, so a document opened in it does not leave the device.

What it does

A PDF viewer you embed rather than a service you call: it renders, annotates and redacts in the browser or in a mobile app, without a server-side PDF library behind it. It ships as two npm packages, one for the headless engine and one for a ready-made interface you can restyle or replace, and it is built on the vendor's own rendering engine rather than a browser's built-in PDF support.

Its redaction is the claim worth reading: the PDF is rebuilt without the marked content when it is exported, and the vendor says residual data - metadata, embedded objects, hidden elements - goes with it.

Best for

Teams building a document experience where the file must not be sent anywhere: air-gapped deployments, mobile apps that work offline, and regulated industries where showing a PDF inside somebody else's viewer is not acceptable. It is one of the components here that documents removal-grade redaction in a client-side component rather than in a desktop application or a service, and MuPDF.js documents browser-capable redaction as well, so it is a capable option rather than the only one.

Worth knowing

It is sold by a vendor that is joining Apryse, so the commercial terms and the support organisation are in motion - and it is a paid SDK with a trial on request and no published price, so the cost has to come from a conversation. The redaction claim is strong and specific, and it is still a vendor claim rather than a test: this index records eight redaction verdicts as tested and this is not one of them, so anybody relying on it for confidential documents should redact one and inspect the output rather than trusting the sentence.

Being client-side, its security properties follow the browser or the app rather than a server you control, which cuts both ways - nothing is uploaded, and the document is on the device. And despite being aimed at air-gapped use, the packages are installed from npm, which is a supply-chain surface a genuinely disconnected environment has to handle deliberately.

Client-side and air-gapped deployment are supported options rather than proof that every embedding application sends no files anywhere: the SDK can open URLs and a custom integration controls its own input and output. The licence documentation reconciles the free testing route: with no licence key the viewer is free but view-only and watermarked, with a ceiling of 100 concurrent users, while the Trial, Professional, Business and Enterprise feature sets are contact-sales tiers and no price is published.

Edit here means annotation and form operations primarily, not general editing of existing text.

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
Web · iOS · Android · Self-hosted
Website
pdf-tools.com
Requires an account
Not applicable
Free tier
No
Watermark on trial output
Yes
Maximum file size
Not verified
Batch processing
Not verified
Data residency
Self-hosted
Open source
No
Self-hostable
Yes
Licence
Commercial; trial licence on request
Redaction
Removes the content
Programmatic access
Embeddable library
Last availability check
Responded in 21 ms 21 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.

“Pdftools delivers true redaction by permanently eliminating residual data such as metadata, embedded objects, and hidden elements. The PDF is rebuilt without the redacted content, ensuring sensitive information is fully removed.”

What that does not establish

The strongest redaction wording on any record added in this batch, and it earns the verdict because it describes the mechanism rather than naming a feature: the file is rebuilt without the content, and the vendor names the categories that usually survive a page-level redaction - metadata, embedded objects, hidden elements. That is the failure mode this index's guide was written about.

What it does not establish: a test. This is a vendor claim, the index records eight verdicts as tested and this is not one of them, and no page read states what happens to attachments or document-level JavaScript specifically.

Settling it is cheap in principle - mark one string, export, and search the output - and until somebody does, the verdict is documentation-based.

https://www.pdf-tools.com/products/viewing-printing/pdf-web-viewer/

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.

  • “Work with PDFs directly on the client without a server-side PDF library. The Pdftools Viewer SDK offers high performance, flexible integration, and comprehensive viewing and editing tools.”

    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. The first read of this page captured too little of the rendered text to compare, so it was read a second time with the network quiet.

    Standing: Not re-read against the live source

    Check it yourself: the source, the SHA-256, and how we checked
    Read
    https://www.pdf-tools.com/products/viewing-printing/pdf-web-viewer/
    From
    the text a browser renders
    SHA-256
    ced0c45a7012230a9a4cd0423edfa5dc10887719600140b56dab5d8adfe0a76a

    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.

    What this hash proves, and what it does not

  • “True redaction: Mark text for redaction. When exporting, redacted text is not exported and becomes truly redacted for ultimate security.”

    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. The first read of this page captured too little of the rendered text to compare, so it was read a second time with the network quiet.

    Standing: Not re-read against the live source

    Check it yourself: the source, the SHA-256, and how we checked
    Read
    https://www.pdf-tools.com/products/viewing-printing/pdf-web-viewer/
    From
    the text a browser renders
    SHA-256
    ced0c45a7012230a9a4cd0423edfa5dc10887719600140b56dab5d8adfe0a76a

    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.

    What this hash proves, and what it does not

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.

Visit Pdftools PDF Viewer SDK Report a problem

Related reading

How this record was put together

Editorial review.
No editor has signed this record off. That is not the same as nothing having been checked, and the lines below say what has.
Source reading.
2 claims taken from the vendor's own pages, read between 1 October 2026 and 1 October 2026.
Website availability.
The vendor's site was last checked on 21 October 2026.
Behaviour testing.
We ran this ourselves. The file handling was watched directly.

Sources: pdf-tools.com: the PDF web viewer product page and the true-redaction feature page, read 2026-09-22 with headless Chrome. Vendor documentation, not independently tested; the packages were not installed and no document was redacted.