Marker vs Stirling PDF
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted apps from related categories — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Marker
Convert PDFs and documents to Markdown with AI
VS
Stirling PDF
Powerful locally hosted web-based PDF toolkit
| Feature | Marker | Stirling PDF |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Self-Hosted AI | Document Management |
| License | GPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Language | Python | Java |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 4,096 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal, source | docker, bare-metal, source |
| GitHub stars | ★ 38,532 | ★ 89,077 |
| First released | 2023 | 2023 |
| Replaces | Adobe Acrobat | Adobe Acrobat, Smallpdf |
Why pick each one
Choose Marker if…
- Released under the GPL-3.0 license
- Mature project with 38.5k GitHub stars
- Written in Python
Frequently asked questions
Is Marker or Stirling PDF better?
Stirling PDF is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler easy setup. Consider Marker if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are Marker and Stirling PDF free and open-source?
Yes. Marker is licensed under GPL-3.0 and Stirling PDF under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Marker and Stirling PDF with Docker?
Marker: check the project docs for container support. Stirling PDF: yes.