ASHDOCS as an alternative to Puppeteer.
ASHDOCS vs self-hosted Puppeteer — same Chromium output, none of the browser-farm ops.
Puppeteer gives you exactly what ASHDOCS renders with — headless Chromium — but you operate the browser farm: memory limits, zombie processes, cold starts, and Chrome version pinning. ASHDOCS is the managed version of the setup you were about to build, plus extraction, OCR, webhooks, and a flow builder.
How does ASHDOCS compare to Puppeteer feature by feature?
| Feature | ASHDOCS | Puppeteer |
|---|---|---|
| Render output | Chromium print-to-PDF | Chromium print-to-PDF (identical) |
| Infra to run | None | Node service + Chrome per pod, ~1 GB RAM each |
| Concurrency | Plan-based, queue managed for you | You build the pool and the queue |
| Cold start | None (warm fleet) | 1–3 s per browser launch |
| Untrusted HTML sandboxing | Isolated render sandbox + SSRF guard | Your responsibility |
| Screenshots | Yes — /tools/screenshot | Yes |
| Extraction / OCR / statements | Included | Build it yourself |
| Cost at 5k PDFs/mo | $15–49/mo | ~$70+ in compute + your on-call time |
What are the key limitations of Puppeteer?
- →Browser farms fail in creative ways: OOM kills mid-render, zombie Chrome processes, and version drift between Chrome and Puppeteer.
- →Rendering user-supplied HTML in your own VPC is an SSRF/XXE minefield; ASHDOCS refuses private-IP fetches at the platform level.
- →Every feature beyond rendering — retries, queues, webhooks, storage, signed URLs — is a sprint you build and maintain.
What does the code look like side by side?
// Puppeteer (self-hosted)
const browser = await puppeteer.launch();
const page = await browser.newPage();
await page.setContent("<h1>Hi</h1>");
await page.pdf({ path: "out.pdf", format: "A4" });
await browser.close();# ASHDOCS — one URL scheme for all 30 tools
curl -X POST https://www.ashdocs.com/api/v1/tools/html-to-pdf \
-H "X-API-Key: ash_test_xxx" \
-H "Content-Type: application/json" \
-d '{ "html": "<h1>Hi</h1>", "options": { "format": "A4" } }'How do I migrate from Puppeteer to ASHDOCS?
- Replace `page.setContent(html)` + `page.pdf()` with one POST to /tools/html-to-pdf; `format`, `margin`, `landscape` options map one-to-one.
- Delete the browser-pool service and its Dockerfile; keep Puppeteer only for true browser automation (clicks, logins).
- Move screenshot jobs to /tools/screenshot with the same viewport options.
- Send bursts to /api/v1/batch (50 per call) instead of scaling pods for month-end invoice runs.
Frequently asked questions
Is the PDF output identical to Puppeteer's?+
Yes — both are Chromium print-to-PDF. Fonts, flexbox, grid, and web fonts behave the same. If your Puppeteer output looked right, ASHDOCS output will too.
When is self-hosted Puppeteer the right call?+
When you need full browser automation — logging in, clicking, waiting on app state — not just rendering. Many teams keep Puppeteer for automation and hand rendering to ASHDOCS.
What does the switch save concretely?+
A dedicated render service (~1 GB RAM per concurrent render), Chrome version management, and the retry/queue/webhook plumbing around it. At 5,000 PDFs/month most teams save both money and an on-call rotation.
Competitor pricing verified 1 August 2026 from the vendor's public pricing page. Pricing changes frequently — check Puppeteer's pricing page for current rates before deciding.