One standard published under two names
Factur-X and ZUGFeRD are two national names for one jointly maintained standard, not two competing formats.
If you are scoping e-invoicing for both France and Germany, it is easy to assume Factur-X and ZUGFeRD are two systems that each need their own build. They are not. They are two national names for the same hybrid e-invoice format, developed and maintained jointly by the two governing bodies: France's FNFE-MPE (Forum National de la Facture Electronique et des Marchés Publics Electroniques) and Germany's FeRD (Forum elektronische Rechnung Deutschland).
FNFE-MPE describes Factur-X as a Franco-German standard for the hybrid e-invoice and states plainly that it is the same standard as ZUGFeRD. FeRD makes the equivalent statement from the German side: ZUGFeRD was developed in close coordination with Factur-X and is largely technically identical to it. The two forums built the formats to be as identical as possible so that a single technical implementation would serve both markets.
This has held since the joint release of ZUGFeRD 2.1 and Factur-X 1.0 in March 2020, published together by FeRD and FNFE-MPE. Every version since has been issued as a paired release, most recently the June 2026 publication of Factur-X 1.09 and ZUGFeRD 2.5. The version numbers differ; the specification underneath does not.
What is actually inside the file
The format is hybrid. Each invoice is a single PDF/A-3 file that a person can read on screen, with a structured XML file embedded inside it that a machine can process automatically. One document carries both the human-readable and the machine-readable version of the same invoice, which is what lets a recipient move to automated processing without losing the familiar visual document.
The embedded XML is built on the UN/CEFACT Cross Industry Invoice (CII) semantic model, and the container is the ISO PDF/A-3 standard for long-term archiving. FNFE-MPE describes Factur-X as the first implementation of the European semantic standard EN 16931, which the European Commission published on 16 October 2017. FeRD confirms the same lineage from the German side: ZUGFeRD is fully in line with EN 16931 and with Directive 2014/55/EU of 16 April 2014.
Because the semantic model, the syntax and the container are all defined by the shared specification, a validator that can read a Factur-X invoice is reading the same structure it would find in a ZUGFeRD invoice. If your system can validate one, it can validate the other.
The profiles are shared, not duplicated
The standard defines a set of profiles that carry increasing amounts of structured data, and both names use the same set. The ZUGFeRD 2.x download package ships six profiles: MINIMUM, BASIC WL, BASIC, EN 16931, EXTENDED and a dedicated XRECHNUNG reference profile. FeRD documents the EN 16931 profile as the one that fully represents EN 16931-1 and covers the core elements of an electronic invoice; this is the profile historically labelled COMFORT in earlier ZUGFeRD versions.
The lighter profiles carry less. MINIMUM and BASIC WL (without lines) hold header-level and summary data but not full invoice line detail, so they do not on their own meet the EN 16931 core. That distinction matters once you cross into national mandates, because a profile that is technically valid under the specification is not automatically an accepted invoice under a given country's law.
The point to take from the profile list is that there is one ladder of profiles, shared across both names. You choose a profile to match the data your trading partner and tax authority require, not to match France versus Germany.
France: Factur-X, Chorus Pro and the 2026 to 2027 rollout
On the French side, FNFE-MPE governs Factur-X, and the format sits inside France's national e-invoicing reform overseen by the DGFiP (Direction Générale des Finances Publiques). Factur-X is one of the formats in the minimum foundation defined by the AFNOR standard XP Z12-012, alongside UBL 2.1 and UN/CEFACT CII D22B. It is also the hybrid format supported through Chorus Pro, the public platform used for business-to-government invoicing.
The reform timetable is staged. From 1 September 2026 every business in scope must be able to receive electronic invoices, whatever its size, and large and mid-sized companies must also issue them. Micro, small and medium-sized enterprises then have until 1 September 2027 to start issuing. Invoices flow through accredited partner platforms, the Plateformes de Dématérialisation Partenaires (PDP), rather than directly between trading partners.
So for France the practical question is not only "can we produce Factur-X" but "which PDP handles our flows, and are we ready to receive from 1 September 2026". The format is the easy part.
French reform scope and dates: impots.gouv.fr, "Je découvre la facturation électronique".
Minimum format foundation (Factur-X, UBL 2.1, UN/CEFACT CII D22B): AFNOR XP Z12-012, published via impots.gouv.fr specifications externes B2B.
Germany: ZUGFeRD alongside XRechnung, from 2025 to 2028
On the German side, FeRD oversees ZUGFeRD, which works as an accepted format alongside XRechnung under Germany's B2B e-invoicing mandate. The legal basis is the Wachstumschancengesetz (Growth Opportunities Act), which phases in mandatory B2B e-invoicing from 2025.
The Bundesfinanzministerium sets out the steps. Since 1 January 2025 every domestic business must be able to receive an e-invoice. Issuing is phased in, with a transition period during which established EDI exchanges can continue by agreement until the end of 2027, and all businesses required to issue B2B e-invoices from 1 January 2028. Invoices below 250 euros and travel tickets stay outside the requirement.
The German guidance also draws the profile line explicitly. The Bundesfinanzministerium states that XRechnung and ZUGFeRD from version 2.0.1 onwards meet the definition of an e-invoice, but excludes the MINIMUM and BASIC WL profiles, because they do not carry the full structured content EN 16931 requires. That is the same profile ladder described above, read through German law.
German receiving, issuing and transition dates, plus the 250 euro threshold: Bundesfinanzministerium FAQ zur E-Rechnung.
Legal basis (Wachstumschancengesetz) and phased B2B rollout from 2025: FeRD.
Where the two mandates actually diverge
The differences between Factur-X and ZUGFeRD are administrative rather than technical, and the profile question is the clearest example. The specification is identical, yet the two national frameworks accept it differently. Germany explicitly rules out the MINIMUM and BASIC WL profiles as standalone e-invoices, while France's minimum foundation builds its reform around Factur-X in combination with UBL 2.1 and CII D22B, transported through PDPs and, for the public sector, Chorus Pro.
A residual technical wrinkle remains from older implementations: the name given to the XML file embedded inside the PDF. Parsers that key off the attachment filename rather than the document structure can trip over it, which is why a real-world implementation needs to accept the naming conventions the specifications allow rather than hard-code one. Modern libraries handle this, but it is worth a line in your acceptance tests.
None of this changes the build. It changes the configuration and the compliance mapping around the build.
| France (Factur-X) | Germany (ZUGFeRD) | |
|---|---|---|
| Governing body | FNFE-MPE | FeRD |
| Underlying standard | EN 16931, UN/CEFACT CII, PDF/A-3 | EN 16931, UN/CEFACT CII, PDF/A-3 |
| Sits alongside | UBL 2.1, UN/CEFACT CII D22B (AFNOR XP Z12-012) | XRechnung |
| Public platform | Chorus Pro (B2G); PDPs for B2B | No central platform for B2B exchange |
| Receiving mandatory | 1 September 2026 (all businesses) | 1 January 2025 (all businesses) |
| Issuing mandatory | 1 September 2026 large / mid; 1 September 2027 SMEs | From 1 January 2028 (transition to end 2027) |
| Profile note | Factur-X in the minimum format foundation | MINIMUM and BASIC WL excluded as e-invoices |
What this means for your programme
If you operate in both markets, you do not need separate builds, separate validation logic or separate vendor integrations for Factur-X and ZUGFeRD. You need one implementation of the shared standard, configured to satisfy two regulatory frameworks and to accept the file naming conventions both allow.
Treating the two as entirely separate standards is where the wasted effort creeps in: duplicated development, longer timelines and integration costs that buy nothing. The more useful exercise is to look across your wider compliance map for other places where one underlying standard hides behind different national labels, so you scope the regulation rather than re-scoping the format each time.
The real challenge in France and Germany is managing two mandates, each with its own platforms, deadlines and accepted profiles. It is not managing two formats, because underneath there is only one.
Two mandates, two governance regimes, two timetables, one EN 16931-based standard.
Explore e-Invoice.app
Real-time compliance data, peer discussions, and cross-functional tools for every stakeholder.
Compare Countries
Side-by-side comparison of mandates, timelines, and technical requirements.
Open Compare ModeFind the Right Vendor
Get matched with e-invoicing vendors for your countries and ERP.
Start vendor match