comparison
Adobe Acrobat vs WalkingPDF for production
Acrobat is where most productions are numbered, and it does that job properly. It is not built to tell you whether the finished set is internally consistent - it has no notion of a production, a load file or a family. WalkingPDF does not edit PDFs at all. The two are sequential, not competing: Acrobat (or any numbering tool) makes the set, and the audit checks it before it is served.
What each one does
- Acrobat: edit pages, add Bates numbers, redact, combine files, export. It changes the document.
- WalkingPDF: read a finished set, reconcile it with its load file, and issue a verdict with a certificate. It never changes the document.
- Acrobat has no concept of a DAT, an OPT, a family range or a cross-volume sequence.
- The audit has no editing tools at all - by design, because a checker that can modify the evidence is not a checker.
Where Acrobat quietly leaves a gap
Numbering a folder in Acrobat numbers it in the order the file dialog returned. The result is continuous, unique and possibly in the wrong order, and nothing in Acrobat will tell you. Redaction is the second: a black box drawn over text removes it from view, and whether it removes it from the file depends on how the redaction was applied. Both are checkable, and neither is checked by the tool that created them.
The honest recommendation
If you already number in Acrobat, keep doing it. Run the check afterwards, once, on the finished set. The $49 tier covers a 1,000-page production, which is less than the time it takes to re-serve a set that was numbered in the wrong order.
Frequently asked questions
Can WalkingPDF replace Acrobat?
No. It does not edit, convert or stamp anything. It checks what Acrobat (or any other tool) produced.
Does the audit read the same files Acrobat produced?
Yes - the PDFs and any DAT or OPT, exactly as they are. Nothing is re-saved.