Four are worth knowing about, each winning a different job. Then the one this site makes, and the difference that actually decides it: the first five minutes. One approach asks you to choose a template and fill it in; the other asks for your source and fills it in for you. Below, that difference walked through on a real task.
Last reviewed September 2026 · no competitor prices quoted, because they change
Ranking these one to ten is mostly theatre — the winner depends on what you are starting from. So here is the job each one wins, Piktochart included.
Best if you want the biggest catalogue to browse
The closest like-for-like swap: a very large template catalogue with chart widgets, and the same browse-choose-fill habit Piktochart trained you in. If what you want is more designs rather than a different way of working, start here.
Best if you also need presentations and interactive content
Broader scope — decks, documents and clickable content alongside infographics. Worth it when the infographic is one deliverable among several and you would rather not add another subscription.
Best if you want full manual control and every other format too
A general design suite rather than an infographic tool. More control over every element, far more templates, and social, print and video in the same place — at the cost of any opinion about whether your chart is the right chart.
Best if your source is a document and the bottleneck is time
You upload the report, spreadsheet or link and the structure is chosen after it has been read. No template to pick and no canvas to arrange — which is the trade: less control, far less time, and a series that stays consistent when you make the next one.
Still best if the template library is why you are there
Worth saying plainly: if you like seeing options before committing, if a particular visual style is the requirement, or if your content is thin and the design is doing the work, none of the above is an upgrade. Browsing is a legitimate way to start and a generator gives you nothing to browse.
| The moment | Filling in a template | Generating from the source |
|---|---|---|
| You have a 28-page quarterly report and an hour | Open the library, browse report templates, pick one with roughly the right number of slots. | Upload the PDF. It is read end to end while you make coffee. |
| Deciding what goes on the sheet | You reread the report and decide which six figures matter. This is the slow part, and it is entirely yours. | Six are proposed, ranked, with their units and periods attached. You overrule the two you disagree with. |
| Getting the numbers in | Type or paste each figure into the template’s chart widgets, one at a time. | Already in, taken from the document, with the source line filled in. |
| When a label is too long | Resize the box, then nudge everything around it back into alignment. | The layout reflows on its own; the frame grows rather than cropping. |
| Making the same sheet next quarter | Duplicate and replace. Reliable, and reasonably quick once the first one exists. | Generate from the new document with the same brand kit. The two match without either being a copy. |
| When you want something the structure does not do | You can build it, because the canvas has no opinion. | You cannot, past a point — that is where a design tool takes over. |
Note the last row. It is a real limitation, not a rhetorical concession — if you regularly need something outside the structures, a canvas tool is the correct choice.
When you want to see options before committing, when a particular visual style is the requirement, or when the content is thin and the design is doing most of the work. Browsing is a legitimate way to start, and a generator gives you nothing to browse.
When the source is long, when the numbers are scattered through prose, when you will make this sheet again next month, and when the bottleneck is the hour spent moving boxes rather than the choice of style.
Deciding what the sheet argues, checking the figures against the source, and cutting a third of the first draft. No tool does those, and any that claims to should be treated with suspicion.
For infographics specifically, Piktochart is the more focused of the two — it exists for infographics, reports and presentations, and its templates are built around data rather than around campaigns. Canva is broader and gives you more manual control, more templates overall, and social, print and video in one place. If infographics are most of the job, Piktochart. If they are one job among many, Canva. Neither answer changes because a third tool exists.
By scale, Adobe Express — it is the only product in the category with comparable reach and a company of that size behind it. Among infographic-focused tools, Piktochart, Venngage and Visme all compete for the same work without competing on breadth. The more useful question is usually not who is biggest but which one is built for the specific thing you keep making.
There is no single answer and any page that gives you one is selling something. The honest version: the biggest template library is Canva, the most infographic-specific catalogues are Venngage and Piktochart, the broadest single platform is Visme, and the fastest route from a long document to a finished sheet is generating from the source. Pick by what you are starting from — a style you have in mind, or a pile of content you have to get through.
Not as editable files. What transfers is the content — and starting from the source document usually gets you further than recreating an old layout would.
Eight structures rather than hundreds of designs: statistics, timeline, process, comparison, report, list, breakdown and social. Each is a real starting point, and the structure is chosen for you when you would rather not choose.
You can edit text, figures, colours and chart choices, and ask for structural changes in ordinary words. What you cannot do is drag arbitrary shapes onto a free canvas — that is the trade this approach makes.
Regenerating from a new document with a saved brand kit is faster than duplicate-and-replace, and it keeps a series visually identical. That is the case where the difference is largest.
Yes, with no card required, and it includes every structure and every shape. To be exact rather than vague about it: the free plan is one infographic to try, with a standard-quality download and a small badge in the footer. It is enough to run the same task through both tools and decide, which is what it is for.
This page will not quote Piktochart’s prices, because they change and a stale price is a false claim with a date on it. What is worth comparing is the shape: ours is a monthly allowance measured in pieces — roughly 80, 250 or 600 a month depending on plan — rather than a per-seat licence, with shared seats included on the two upper plans. Read that against whatever their current page says, and check which model matches how often you actually make these.
No desktop app and nothing to install — it runs in a browser on Windows, macOS, Linux, Chromebook, iPad and phone. If you are searching for a downloadable version of an infographic tool, that is worth knowing before you switch: everything here lives in the browser, and a piece you make is reachable from any machine you sign in on.
A PNG at up to triple resolution, the piece as one self-contained HTML file, plus a share link that opens on any screen without an account. There is no SVG or PDF export — if you need a PDF, print the share page to one from your browser.
Piktochart is a trademark of its owner and we are not affiliated with them. This page describes general differences in workflow rather than a feature or price comparison; check their own site for current details.
Upload it and see which six numbers come back. That is the whole evaluation.
Try it free