Pacco vs Pixieset: an honest head-to-head for 2026

If you’re a photographer evaluating Pacco against Pixieset, you’ve probably read the marketing pages on both sides and come away with the same feeling: every platform claims to be the modern one, the affordable one, the photographer-first one. So this is the article we wished existed when we were building Pacco. A head-to-head that calls things by their name, including where Pixieset is genuinely better and where Pacco still has work to do.

We make Pacco. We’re not pretending to be neutral. What we are trying to do is be honest about the trade-offs, source the claims we make about Pixieset to their public pricing page, and tell you out loud when one of them is the better choice for your situation.

At a glance

Feature	Pacco	Pixieset
Per-photo sales	✔ (built into delivery)	✔ (store digital downloads)
Custom domain	Pro (middle tier)	Any paid tier
Native RAW upload	✔ (Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc.)	✔ (2025, Pro and Ultimate plans)
EU data residency	✔ (Brussels controller)	✘ (Canada / US)
French UI for photographers	✔	✘ (client galleries only)
Free tier	✔	✔
Client mobile app	✘	Home-screen web app
Print store / lab integration	✘	✔ (WHCC, Loxley Colour, others)
Years in market	New	Since 2013

What this comparison covers

Two client-gallery platforms aimed at working photographers. Both let you upload, brand, share, and sell client galleries. Both have a free tier and paid tiers that unlock storage, custom domains, proofing, and sales. The shape of the offering is similar enough that the differences hide in details that don’t fit on a feature checkbox.

What this comparison does not cover: business CRMs (HoneyBook, Studio Ninja, Iris), in-person sales tools, or print labs. Pixieset has a print store; Pacco does not, and we’ll come back to that under “Where Pixieset wins.”

Where Pacco wins

Per-photo purchasing built into delivery. Pacco galleries can be configured so the client pays for a base pack (say, 30 photos) and adds individual photos beyond that, inside the delivery flow itself. To be fair to Pixieset: their store can sell single-photo digital downloads and download packages too, so this is not a capability Pacco has and Pixieset lacks. The difference is shape. On Pacco the pack-plus-extras model is the gallery’s native mode; on Pixieset it’s a storefront configured alongside the gallery. If your clients buy a curated selection rather than the whole set, try both flows with a test gallery and see which one your couples actually finish.

EU data residency. Pacco’s data controller is registered in Brussels. Photos are stored on Cloudflare R2 in the EU; the CDN is Bunny; analytics is Pirsch (cookieless, EU). Pixieset is a Canadian company with US-resident sub-processors. For French and German wedding photographers handling sensitive client photos, “where is my data” is a real question, and the answers are different.

French UI for photographers. Pacco ships in French and English end to end, dashboard included. Pixieset’s client-facing galleries can be displayed in French (one of eight gallery languages), but the photographer-facing dashboard is English-only. So your couples are covered on both platforms; the tool you spend your editing weeks in speaks French only on Pacco.

Where Pixieset wins

Maturity. Pixieset has been shipping client galleries since 2013. The product is polished, the bugs are mostly known, the help docs are thorough, and the photographer community around it is large. Pacco is newer, and that shows in places: fewer integrations, smaller community, a shorter list of “we’ve seen that before” answers when something goes wrong.

A mobile gallery app for clients. Pixieset offers a Mobile Gallery App: a home-screen web app the client installs from the gallery itself (“Add to Home Screen” on iOS), not a native App Store download. It still ends with an app icon full of their photos on the client’s phone, and Pacco has no equivalent installable app yet. For some clients (especially older relatives), that icon is genuinely friendlier than a bookmarked URL.

Print store with integrated labs. Pixieset’s print store integrates with WHCC, Miller’s, ProDPI and Mpix in North America, and Loxley Colour for European orders, so clients can order prints and albums directly from the gallery on either side of the Atlantic. Pacco does not have a print lab integration today. If a meaningful slice of your revenue comes from in-gallery print sales, this is a real gap and we’d say so even on a tier-locked comparison.

A larger surrounding ecosystem. Pixieset’s own integration list is short (Google Calendar and Zoom, plus its built-in Studio Manager CRM), but its size means third-party tools meet it halfway: Studio Ninja, for example, links Pixieset galleries from its side. Pacco is newer and smaller, so fewer tools have built bridges to it yet. If your studio runs on a specific CRM, check from that CRM’s side whether it talks to either platform before you switch.

Pricing in EUR

Pacco prices in EUR. Pixieset’s public pricing page lists USD, so check which currency and rate you’re actually billed at checkout. The structural differences matter more than the numbers, because the numbers move:

• Free tier: Both offer one. The shapes differ; verify on the live pricing pages for current storage and gallery limits.
• Custom domain: Pacco includes it from the middle paid tier. Pixieset includes it on any paid Client Gallery plan as of 2026-06-12, so neither platform makes you buy the top tier for your own URL.
• VAT: Pacco is registered in Belgium. EU B2C buyers see VAT-inclusive pricing; EU B2B buyers with a valid VAT ID get reverse-charge invoices. Pixieset’s VAT handling depends on their EU registration setup; confirm at checkout.

The honest answer to “which is cheaper?” is: it depends on which features you need and which tier each platform charges for them. For a photographer who wants a custom domain, branded galleries, and proofing, the like-for-like Pacco tier tends to come in below the equivalent Pixieset tier. For a photographer who only needs a free portfolio site, both have free tiers and you should pick on fit rather than price.

Migration friction

There is no automated Pixieset → Pacco importer today. If you have galleries you want to move, the workflow is manual: download the originals from Pixieset (or re-upload from your local archive, which is faster), create a new Pacco gallery, set branding, and re-share the link with the client. For a single active wedding gallery the friction is low. For a five-year archive of 200 galleries, it’s a project.

We’re aware this is a meaningful blocker for established photographers and it’s on our roadmap, not on the live product.

Who should pick Pixieset over Pacco

A short, honest list:

• Studios that earn most of their revenue from in-gallery print sales, whether through WHCC in North America or Loxley Colour in Europe, where the lab integration is doing real work for you every month. Pacco can’t replace that engine today.
• Photographers whose clients want an installable gallery app on their home screen, typically family or school photographers serving an older or less tech-fluent demographic.
• Studios whose CRM already links to Pixieset, like Studio Ninja’s gallery connection, or who lean on the bundled Studio Manager CRM, where rebuilding that plumbing on a smaller platform isn’t worth the saved monthly fee.

For everyone else, and especially European wedding and portrait photographers, Pacco is worth a serious look. The delivery-native selective-purchase model, the EU posture, and the French-first experience add up to a meaningfully different product, not just a cheaper Pixieset.

If you’d like to try it, the free tier is the easiest place to start.