E-Invoicing Formats
XRechnung vs. ZUGFeRD
XRechnung or ZUGFeRD? Pure XML versus hybrid PDF: syntax, profiles, public-sector acceptance and archiving compared, with a clear recommendation.
| Criterion | XRechnung | ZUGFeRD |
|---|---|---|
| Data format | Pure XML without a visual layer | Hybrid: PDF/A-3 with an embedded XML file (factur-x.xml; xrechnung.xml in the XRECHNUNG profile) |
| XML syntax | UBL 2.1 or UN/CEFACT CII, both equally valid | UN/CEFACT CII only |
| Publisher and version (as of September 2026) | KoSIT on behalf of the IT Planning Council; XRechnung 3.0.2 (bundle of 31 Aug 2026), 4.0 pre-release since September 2026 | FeRD together with France's FNFE-MPE; ZUGFeRD 2.5.2 of 4 Aug 2026, technically identical to Factur-X 1.09.2 |
| Human readability | Readable only with a viewer or visualisation | PDF part opens in any PDF reader; legally, the XML part prevails |
| Profiles | One specification (a CIUS of EN 16931), optionally with the Extension XRechnung, e.g. for construction invoices with GAEB files | MINIMUM, BASIC WL, BASIC, EN 16931 (COMFORT), EXTENDED, XRECHNUNG |
| E-invoice under § 14 UStG (B2B since 2025) | Yes | Yes from version 2.0.1, except the MINIMUM and BASIC WL profiles (BMF letter of 15 Oct 2025) |
| EU standard EN 16931 | Compliant; adds national business rules (BR-DE) | BASIC, EN 16931 and XRECHNUNG compliant, EXTENDED as a conformant extension; MINIMUM and BASIC WL do not meet the standard |
| Invoices to public authorities (B2G) | The standard under the federal E-Invoicing Ordinance (mandatory for suppliers since 27 Nov 2020); also widespread at state and municipal level | Explicitly accepted by the federal government in the XRECHNUNG profile; clarify other profiles with the contracting authority first |
| Leitweg-ID / buyer reference (BT-10) | BT-10 is mandatory (BR-DE-15); for authorities it holds the Leitweg-ID, in B2B any other buyer reference | Same as XRechnung in the XRECHNUNG profile; in other profiles only if the recipient asks for it |
| Transmission | Federal OZG-RE platform (web form, upload, email, Peppol), state portals, Peppol or email | Mostly by email or via supplier portals; to authorities only in the XRECHNUNG profile |
| Typical use | Public authorities, e-procurement and fully automated accounts payable | B2B among small and mid-sized companies, because recipients without e-invoicing software can read the PDF |
| Processing effort | Small files, purely structured data | Larger files due to the PDF wrapper; PDF and XML must match in content |
| Validation | XML schema plus Schematron rules (EN 16931 and BR-DE), e.g. with the KoSIT validator or the docutools.pro XRechnung viewer | Additional PDF/A-3 and metadata checks (e.g. veraPDF, Mustang); the XML is checked against the rules of its profile |
| Archiving (GoBD) | Keep the XML file unaltered in its original format for 8 years (§ 14b UStG) | The XML part is sufficient; the PDF only if it carries additional tax-relevant information (GoBD amendment of 14 Jul 2025) |
Verdict
For invoices to public authorities, XRechnung is the safe choice: it is the standard under the E-Invoicing Ordinance, and the federal OZG-RE platform accepts it on every channel; ZUGFeRD only works there in the XRECHNUNG profile. In B2B, both formats have satisfied the e-invoicing mandate under § 14 UStG since 2025, but ZUGFeRD only from version 2.0.1 and not in the MINIMUM and BASIC WL profiles. ZUGFeRD in the EN 16931 profile is the easier route when your customers still check invoices as PDFs or have no e-invoicing software. XRechnung fits when the recipient processes invoices fully automatically or explicitly asks for pure XML. If you serve both groups, the ZUGFeRD XRECHNUNG profile gives you one file that meets the XRechnung rules and still opens as a PDF. Legally, the XML part of a ZUGFeRD invoice always prevails: if the PDF differs, the XML counts.