Head to head
PDF vs Pearl
Same numbers we show everywhere else, lined up. Ratings come from users, the grade comes from our scanner, adoption comes from public registries.
No reviews yet
Agentic RAG over one PDF or a whole folder: hybrid search, selective page reads, tables, OCR.
Full listing
No reviews yet
Pearl places, table availability, and confirmed visit, save and trip actions for reviewed hosts.
Full listingThe short version
Neither has been reviewed yet, so the comparison rests on the scan and the public usage numbers. The safety scan favours Pearl (95/100 against 85). Pearl is hosted and callable through the gateway; PDF runs on your own machine. PDF has noticeably more public adoption.
| Pearl | ||
|---|---|---|
| User rating | No reviews yet | No reviews yet |
| Safety grade | A85/100 | A95/100 |
| Adoption | Established | Growing |
| GitHub stars | 136 | 1 |
| Downloads / week | 1.2k | – |
| Runs where | Your machine (local) | Hosted (remote) |
| Gateway-ready | No | Yes |
| Tools | 13 | — |
| Write actions | — | — |
| Price per call | Free | Free |
| Licence | MIT | MIT |
| Last release | 2026-09-19 | 2026-09-19 |
| Category | AI and agents | AI and agents |