Reading Time: 8 minutes

Table of Content

Case Study: Modernizing Enterprise PDF Workflows: Why We Moved from Adobe to Foxit

Why We Moved from Adobe to Foxit
As an IT leader responsible for managed IT services, IT support, and enterprise IT infrastructure, I don’t make a habit of questioning longstanding industry defaults. Some tools earn their reputation for good reason, and in the world of PDF workflows, Adobe has long been the default. For years, Adobe Acrobat and Adobe PDF Services were embedded in our environment, supporting both employee productivity and automated document workflows.
Over time, however, the role PDFs played within our IT infrastructure began to change. They were no longer just documents people edited on their desktops. PDFs became infrastructure, powering automated generation, ingestion, extraction, and delivery across our application stack. At the same time, our workforce changed, and the number of employees who needed to work with PDFs grew—though rarely at the level of complexity Acrobat Pro was designed to deliver.
From a managed IT services perspective, that shift mattered. Supporting document workflows is no longer just about software features; it’s about scalability, predictability, and operational efficiency. That realization led us to ask a simple but critical question:

Does Adobe still make sense for how we support PDFs across modern IT environments today?

That question prompted a deeper evaluation of both our API strategy and our end-user PDF tools, and ultimately led us to move to Foxit.

Our Starting Point: Adobe Everywhere

Adobe Everywhere
Like many organizations, our PDF strategy was built almost entirely around Adobe. Acrobat was the standard for end-user editing and signing, while Adobe PDF Services APIs powered document generation, conversion, OCR, and extraction across multiple applications. Licensing and contracts were Adobe centric and spread across teams.
From a capability standpoint, this approach worked. Adobe’s APIs are mature, feature rich, and proven; particularly for advanced use cases such as accessibility tagging and complex document extraction. Functionality was never in question.
What began to surface instead were operational and alignment issues.

Where Things Start to Break Down

APIs at Scale

As use of PDF APIs expands, the friction becomes more noticeable. Transaction based pricing makes cost forecasting difficult, and different operations consume different units in ways that aren’t always intuitive. As usage increases, scaling often requires sales conversations rather than simple configuration changes.
PDF services are becoming foundational to our applications, yet gaining clarity around usage, cost, and future growth still requires manual effort. While the platform itself is powerful, it feels rigid for something that is becoming a core part of our infrastructure. At scale, that rigidity matters.

The End-user Editing Reality

On the desktop side, the challenge looked different but was just as real. Many employees were licensed for Acrobat Pro but only used a small subset of its capabilities. Most daily work involved basic text edits, annotations, combining or splitting documents, and the occasional signature. Acrobat remained excellent software, but for most users, it was far more than they needed.
That mismatch showed up quickly. Licensing costs added up, IT dealt with deployment complexity and special cases, and users often described the application as heavy for routine tasks.

Reframing the Problem

The turning point came when we stopped asking, “Which PDF vendor is best?” and started asking more practical questions. What do our developers actually need to build and scale systems? What do our users actually use every day? And what does IT need in order to support both groups reliably at scale?
Once we reframed the problem, it became clear that PDFs were no longer a single, monolithic decision, but a set of related needs that deserved to be evaluated independently. We were really dealing with three related but distinct needs: API driven document workflows, SDKs and embedded use cases, and general PDF editing software.
Looking at the challenge in a new light opened the door to Foxit.

Why We Chose Foxit for APIs

Foxit’s API platform stood out because of its straightforward design. For our core use cases; document conversion, PDF generation, optimization, and embedding, it delivered what we needed without unnecessary abstraction or complexity.
The credit based pricing model made an immediate difference. We could predict costs more accurately, monitor usage in real time, and scale without renegotiating contracts. From a development standpoint, integration was fast, documentation was clear, and onboarding didn’t require prolonged sales cycles.
It felt like a platform built to enable innovation and delivery, not one shaped primarily around procurement workflows.

Why We Switched End-users to Foxit PDF Editor

Why We Switched End-users to Foxit PDF Editor
Moving away from Acrobat for end-users turned out to be less disruptive than expected. Foxit PDF Editor covered the full range of functionality our users actually relied on; solid editing and annotation tools, dependable redaction and form filling, and built-in digital signature support. The interface was familiar enough that training requirements were minimal.
The most important realization was that users weren’t losing meaningful functionality; if anything, they were shedding features they never used. In exchange, we gained lower licensing costs, simpler deployment and updates, reduced desktop resource usage, and far fewer exceptions to manage.
From an IT perspective, standardization finally aligned with reality.

Support and Vendor Access Made a Difference

Support and Vendor Access Made a Difference
One of the more surprising benefits of the switch was improved access to the vendor itself. With Foxit, engaging with both sales and technical teams was straightforward and efficient. API access requests moved quickly, questions were answered directly, and escalations didn’t disappear into long ticket queues or abstract support channels. That level of responsiveness changed how we planned and delivered work. When a platform underpins both application workflows and end-user productivity, timely access to people who understand the product isn’t just a convenience, it materially reduces risk. It shortens feedback loops, lowers uncertainty during scaleup, and gives IT confidence that problems can be addressed before they become incidents.

The Outcome

After completing the transition, the results were clear. Developers gained predictable, scalable APIs. Users retained everything they needed for daily PDF work. IT simplified licensing, deployment, and support, while finance finally had clarity and control over costs.
Adobe still excels in advanced and creative heavy environments. But for how PDFs are actually used across our organization today, Foxit proved to be the better fit.

Final Takeaway

Looking back, this decision wasn’t about replacing one vendor with another. It was about reexamining an assumption that no longer aligned with how managed IT services and IT support teams operate today.
For a long time, we treated PDF tooling as a single, inseparable choice: one vendor, one platform, one standard for everything from developer APIs to everyday document edits. That made sense when PDFs were primarily static files and when the majority of value lived on the desktop, but as PDFs became embedded in applications, workflows, and integrations, they became part of the IT infrastructure itself.
That world has changed. Developers need APIs that scale predictably and integrate cleanly into supported systems. End-users needed reliable, efficient tools that handle common tasks; editing, commenting, redaction, and signing, without unnecessary complexity. And IT needs solutions that are easier to deploy, support, and manage over time. These realities don’t require the same solution and forcing them into one platform creates unnecessary cost and friction.
By separating API driven document workflows from general PDF editing needs, we were able to make more intentional choices in each area that support how modern IT support organizations operate. Developers gained tools that scaled predictably and integrated cleanly. Users kept the functionality they actually depended on, without carrying the weight of unused features. IT reduced operational overhead, and finance gained transparency and control. For IT leaders responsible for managed IT services and long-term infrastructure planning, decisions like this directly impact supportability, scalability, and operational cost.
The biggest lesson wasn’t that Adobe was the wrong choice; it was that default technology choices deserve regular reevaluation, especially when they sit at the intersection of user productivity and infrastructure. For organizations delivering managed IT services, that mindset shift can unlock meaningful gains in efficiency, resilience, and long-term supportability. At Tarika Group, we see this same shift playing out across organizations modernizing their IT infrastructure and managed IT services.
For us, that mindset shift made the move from Adobe to Foxit not just logical, but overdue.

Key Takeaways

  • PDFs have evolved from desktop documents into core application infrastructure.
  • API driven workflows and end-user editing needs should be evaluated separately.
  • Predictable pricing and transparent usage matter at scale.
  • Most users need powerful basics—not maximum feature depth.
  • Vendor accessibility and support responsiveness reduce operational risk.
  • Reevaluating longstanding defaults can unlock meaningful gains across IT, finance, and engineering.
Scroll to Top