Krita vs Pinta
Both are alternatives to Adobe Photoshop. Here's how they stack up — verified facts, no spin.
Also searched as Pinta vs Krita — same comparison, one verdict.
Krita and Pinta are closely matched on ownership (96 vs 92) — this one comes down to pricing and to which trade-offs below you can live with.
Krita
A professional open-source studio for digital painting that doubles as a capable image editor.
Krita is a KDE project stewarded by the Krita Foundation, built first for digital painting and illustration: its brush engines, pen-tablet support, and animation tools are best-in-class among free software. It is also a genuinely capable general raster editor with layers, masks, filters, and PSD import/export, which makes it the strongest pick for people who use Photoshop mainly to draw and paint rather than to retouch photos. The direct download is completely free; identical GPL-licensed builds are sold on Steam and the Microsoft, Epic, and Mac App Stores purely to fund development.
Pinta
A lightweight, open-source editor for quick everyday image edits.
Pinta is a simple, MIT-licensed image editor modeled on Paint.NET, for the large group of people who pay for Photoshop but mostly crop, resize, annotate, and make quick adjustments. It offers layers, a solid set of adjustments and effects, and an interface you can learn in minutes, on Linux, Windows, and macOS. It is deliberately not a professional tool: there is no PSD support and nothing like Photoshop-depth retouching — but if your needs are genuinely simple, it may be all the editor you need.
Side by side
10 points of comparison, every one read from a verified field. Green marks the side that wins a row outright. A dash means we do not hold that fact — never that it is zero.
| Krita | Pinta | |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty ScoreOur transparent 0–100 composite for data ownership and exit cost. | 96 | 92 |
| Open source | Yes | Yes |
| Self-hostable | Yes | Yes |
| Local-first data | Yes | Yes |
| License | GPL-3.0-only | MIT |
| Pricing | Free download; optional paid store builds fund development | Free and open-source |
| RAM to run it wellThe figure that actually matters, not the vendor's minimum. | 8 GB for large canvases at print resolution | Depends on your images. Every layer is a full uncompressed canvas at 4 bytes per pixel, so a 24-megapixel photo costs about 96 MB per layer, before undo history |
| Realistic running costWhat the box costs each month if you run it yourself. | $0 — it runs on the machine you already own | $0 — it runs on the machine you already own |
| Setup timeHonest first-install estimate, not the marketing quickstart. | 20 minutes | 5 minutes |
| Ongoing maintenanceThe part nobody budgets for. | None beyond updates. | Install new versions when they ship, which is a few times a year (3.0.4 through 3.1.2 in the last twelve months). No account, no server, nothing to back up but your own files. |
Krita edges it on the Sovereignty Score, but the right pick depends on the trade-offs below.
Weighing both against staying on Adobe Photoshop? Is Adobe Photoshop free? What it actually costs →
Krita
Strengths
- +Free and open-source (GPL-3.0-only), developed by the Krita Foundation with a steady, funded release cadence
- +Best-in-class brush engines, tablet support, and painting workflow
- +Solid layer, mask, and filter tools for general raster work; opens and exports PSD
- +Cross-platform — Windows, macOS, Linux, and an Android/ChromeOS build
Trade-offs
- −Painting-first by design — photo retouching and selection tools are shallower than Photoshop's or GIMP's
- −PSD round-trips can lose advanced Photoshop-specific features
- −No built-in generative AI features
- −Large canvases with many layers want plenty of RAM
Pinta
Strengths
- +Simple and fast for everyday edits — crop, resize, annotate, adjust
- +MIT-licensed and cross-platform (Linux, Windows, macOS)
- +Layers and useful adjustments/effects without a learning curve
- +Small footprint; runs well on older hardware
Trade-offs
- −Nowhere near Photoshop's depth — no advanced retouching, masking, or prepress tools
- −No PSD support (native format plus OpenRaster and standard image formats)
- −Small maintainer team and a modest development pace
- −Far smaller ecosystem and fewer tutorials than GIMP or Krita
Which one fits you
The trade-offs above, turned into a decision. Find the line that describes your team.
Choose Krita
if a lower exit cost matters more to you than any single feature, and free and open-source (GPL-3.0-only), developed by the Krita Foundation with a steady, funded release cadence.
Choose Pinta
if simple and fast for everyday edits — crop, resize, annotate, adjust.
Neither, yet
if both carry a real cost you should weigh first — painting-first by design — photo retouching and selection tools are shallower than Photoshop's or GIMP's, and nowhere near Photoshop's depth — no advanced retouching, masking, or prepress tools. If either of those is a dealbreaker for your team, the shortlist is wrong rather than the choice.
What it takes to run these yourself
Real requirements and honest running costs, not the vendor quickstart.
Self-hosting Krita
8 GB for large canvases at print resolution RAM · 20 minutes
$0 — it runs on the machine you already own
Self-hosting Pinta
Depends on your images. Every layer is a full uncompressed canvas at 4 bytes per pixel, so a 24-megapixel photo costs about 96 MB per layer, before undo history RAM · 5 minutes
$0 — it runs on the machine you already own
Krita vs Pinta — common questions
Is Krita a better fit than Pinta for image editing?
It depends on what you are optimising for, and the honest split is this: Krita scores 96 to Pinta's 92 on data ownership and exit cost, so it is the safer choice if you care about being able to leave. Pinta earns its place on a different axis — simple and fast for everyday edits — crop, resize, annotate, adjust. Neither is a wrong answer for every team; the table above is the actual comparison.
What happens if we want to switch later?
Krita keeps its data local or in open formats, so leaving is an export rather than a negotiation. Pinta is still self-hostable, so the files stay on your server either way — but it is not local-first by design, so check what its export produces before you rely on it.
Can I self-host Krita or Pinta?
Both can be self-hosted. The difference is what it costs you in time rather than whether it is possible — see the setup and maintenance rows above.
Are Krita and Pinta both alternatives to Adobe Photoshop?
Yes — both appear in our Adobe Photoshop comparison, which is why they are worth putting side by side. People usually arrive here already having decided to move off Adobe Photoshop and now choosing between the two replacements, which is a narrower and much easier question.
Related alternative guides
Facts verified 2026-07-06. Licenses and pricing change — spotted something out of date? That's a correction we want.