BentoPDF and Stirling PDF are both free, self-hosted PDF toolkits, but they solve the privacy problem in opposite ways. BentoPDF processes every file inside your browser and needs almost no server resources; Stirling PDF runs a full backend on your server and can do things a browser alone can’t, like batch-processing files through a REST API. Which one fits depends less on price and more on what you’re actually trying to do.
Client-Side vs Server-Side: The Core Difference
| Feature | BentoPDF | Stirling PDF |
|---|---|---|
| Processing model | Entirely in the browser (WASM) | Server-side Java backend |
| Typical resource footprint | Minimal — mostly serves static files | Real RAM/CPU use, image over 1 GB |
| License | AGPL-3.0 (self-hosted build free; commercial license available) | MIT (open-core; free self-hosted core, optional paid tier) |
| API access | None — browser UI only | Full REST API for automation |
| Best fit | Quick edits on sensitive files, minimal server | Batch processing, OCR, automated pipelines |
Privacy Track Record: Why Some Users Switched
Both projects have had a trust moment worth knowing about. Stirling PDF previously shipped an analytics feature that was on by default rather than opt-in — the project later made it configurable, but the episode pushed some privacy-focused users toward alternatives. BentoPDF has its own governance story: it moved from a permissive Apache license to AGPL-3.0 after a company repackaged the project as a paid product without contributing back, which is a reminder that ‘open source’ and ‘exactly how you can redistribute it’ are two different questions worth reading before you build a business on either tool.
Which One Fits Your VPS Budget
Because BentoPDF does almost nothing server-side, a Contabo Cloud VPS 4 (8 GB RAM) runs it comfortably — you’re really only paying for the static hosting and the bandwidth. Stirling PDF wants more headroom for its JVM and OCR/conversion jobs; a Cloud VPS 6 (12 GB RAM) is a reasonable starting point, with a Cloud VPS 8 (24 GB RAM) worth it if batch processing is a regular part of the workflow. Either way, Contabo provides the VPS and the root access — not the operation of whichever toolkit you choose. You deploy, configure, and maintain the container yourself.
FAQ: BentoPDF vs Stirling PDF
BentoPDF has the stronger default: files never leave the browser, so there’s nothing for a server to log or mishandle. Stirling PDF is still fully self-hosted and private from third parties, but files do pass through its backend, and it has a past analytics-default issue worth being aware of.
BentoPDF by a wide margin. It’s a client-side app that the VPS mostly just serves as static files, while Stirling PDF runs a persistent Java backend that uses real memory even when idle.
Yes — neither is resource-hungry enough on its own to require a dedicated server, and running them as separate Docker containers on one VPS is a common setup for covering both quick browser-based edits and heavier batch or OCR jobs.
Disclaimer: Product specifications, features, and prices mentioned in this article are subject to change and may vary by region, billing term, and active promotions. Please check each provider’s or brand’s official website for current figures, pricing, and local currency rates.