TeX Engine Comparison
Comprehensive comparison of pdfTeX, XeLaTeX, and LuaTeX
| Feature/Aspect | pdfTeX | XeLaTeX | LuaTeX |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core Characteristics | |||
| Base Engine | Extended TeX with PDF output | Extended e-TeX with Unicode | Extended pdfTeX with Lua scripting |
| Initial Release | 1996 | 2004 | 2007 |
| Primary Purpose | Direct PDF generation from TeX | Unicode and modern font support | Extensible TeX with scripting |
| Font Support | |||
| Traditional TeX Fonts | Excellent | Good | Excellent |
| OpenType Fonts | None | Excellent | Excellent |
| TrueType Fonts | Limited | Excellent | Excellent |
| System Font Access | None | Full Access | Full Access |
| Unicode and Encoding | |||
| Native Unicode | No (8-bit encoding) | Yes (UTF-8) | Yes (UTF-8) |
| Input Encoding | Requires inputenc package | UTF-8 by default | UTF-8 by default |
| Font Encoding | Requires fontenc package | Direct Unicode support | Direct Unicode support |
| Programming and Extensibility | |||
| Scripting Language | TeX macros only | TeX macros only | Lua 5.3+ embedded |
| Direct Node Access | No | No | Yes (via Lua) |
| Callback System | No | No | Extensive callbacks |
| Performance | |||
| Compilation Speed | Fastest | Moderate | Slowest |
| Memory Usage | Lowest | Moderate | Highest |
| Startup Time | ~50ms | ~100-150ms | ~200-300ms |
| Advanced Features | |||
| Microtypography | Full support | Limited support | Full support |
| Character Protrusion | Yes | Via microtype (limited) | Yes |
| Font Expansion | Yes | No | Yes |
| OpenType Features | No | Full control via fontspec | Full control via fontspec |
| Graphics and Color | |||
| PDF Features | Native support | Via xdvipdfmx driver | Extended native support |
| Color Models | RGB, CMYK, Gray, Spot | RGB, CMYK, Gray, Spot | RGB, CMYK, Gray, Spot |
| Transparency | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Package Compatibility | |||
| Legacy Packages | 100% | ~90% | ~95% |
| babel Support | Full | Full (polyglossia preferred) | Full |
| Bibliography | BibTeX, Biber | BibTeX, Biber | BibTeX, Biber |
| Use Cases | |||
| Best For | Standard documents, maximum compatibility, fastest compilation | Multilingual documents, modern fonts, Unicode-heavy content | Complex programming, custom solutions, advanced typography |
| Limitations | No Unicode, no system fonts, limited to TeX fonts | No font expansion, slower than pdfTeX, some microtype limitations | Slower compilation, higher memory usage, occasional compatibility issues |