PDFs and HTML pages both deliver documents to readers. They have different superpowers — and different blind spots.
Here is when each is right.
Where PDF wins
Exact layout preservation across every device. Print-ready. Supports signatures and form fields. Tamper-evident with hashing. Standard format for contracts, regulatory filings and archival.
Where HTML wins
Native to the browser. Easy to update. SEO and discoverability. Responsive layout that adapts to screen size. Best for marketing pages, evergreen documentation and content that changes often.
Hybrid case
Many teams publish in HTML and offer a 'download PDF' for archival. That covers both audiences without much extra work. Flint's convert-pdf helps when conversion is needed in either direction.
Best for…
PDF for finalised, signed, archival and print-ready documents. HTML for live, updateable, discoverable web content. Most teams use both, deliberately.
FAQ
Is PDF good for SEO?
Less than HTML. Google does index PDFs but they rank less well than the HTML equivalent.
Can HTML be signed?
Not in the legal-document sense. PDFs are the standard for that.
Which is more accessible?
Well-built HTML is more accessible by default. PDFs can be made accessible but it requires effort.
Web content: HTML. Contracts, archival, signed: PDF.