Do I have to generate differently for France than for Germany?

Not the format. ZUGFeRD in the EN 16931 profile is, format-wise, a valid Factur-X too. The difference is the route: France requires an approved platform, Germany does not.

Why do the two have different version numbers?

Because each country publishes its specification independently, even though the content is aligned. A version statement is therefore unambiguous only together with the standard's name.

Can I just send a ZUGFeRD file to France?

The file, yes. Whether the route fits is the second question — and the one more often overlooked.

Which profile should I pick for both countries?

EN 16931. It meets the standard, stays interoperable, and avoids the argument about the small profiles, which count as full e-invoices in neither country.

ZUGFeRD or Factur-X: is there a difference?

At format level there is no difference: ZUGFeRD and Factur-X are the same jointly developed standard, and one file is valid in both countries. Two other things do matter — the version numbers are counted separately, and France additionally requires a particular delivery route that Germany does not.

Also:

ZUGFeRD vs Factur-X · Unterschied ZUGFeRD Factur-X

Reviewed on 2026-08-26.

The short answer

There is no format difference. What Germany calls ZUGFeRD, France calls Factur-X — the same PDF/A-3 shell, the same embedded CII syntax, the same profiles.

Generate a valid ZUGFeRD file and you have generated a valid Factur-X file without doing anything for it.

Where differences do lie

	ZUGFeRD	Factur-X
Carrier	PDF/A-3	PDF/A-3
Embedded syntax	CII	CII
Profiles	identical	identical
Version counting	independent	independent
Prescribed delivery route	no	yes (approved platform)
Tax administration involved	no	yes (five-corner model)

The bottom two rows are the only ones that create work in a project. And they do not concern the file.

The version trap

Both standards count separately. A statement like "we support 2.x" is therefore ambiguous without the standard's name — the numbers refer to different publications of the same aligned basis.

💡 In agreements always name both: standard and version, plus the profile. "ZUGFeRD 2.5, EN 16931 profile" is a complete answer. "We do ZUGFeRD" is not.

The difference that actually counts

Germany regulates e-invoicing between businesses through the document: it must be structured and conform to the standard. How it reaches the recipient is left to the parties — an email is enough.

France additionally regulates the route: invoices travel over approved platforms, and the tax administration receives data along the way. That is not a property of the format but of the process.

🔴 In projects the two get mixed regularly. Somebody reports "Factur-X does not work", and what is meant is that the platform attachment is missing. The file was never the problem.

Recommendation

Generate ZUGFeRD in the EN 16931 profile. That makes you conformant in Germany, format-conformant in France, and connectable in the rest of the EU, because the profile covers the core of the European standard in full.

Everything beyond that is a question of the delivery route — and that one is answered by the recipient, not by the specification.