Skip to main content

E-RECHNUNG

E-Rechnung formats: XRechnung, ZUGFeRD, and Peppol, untangled

Three names dominate every conversation about German e-invoicing, and they are not three competing versions of the same thing: one is a pure XML standard, one is a hybrid document format, and one is primarily a delivery network. All three rest on the same European norm, EN 16931, which is why choosing between them is less fateful than it looks.

Last updated: September 11, 2026

The common foundation: EN 16931

EN 16931 defines what an electronic invoice says: the semantic model of Business Terms (invoice number, parties, line items, VAT breakdown, totals) and the business rules connecting them. It does not prescribe one file format; it allows expression in XML syntaxes, notably UBL and UN/CEFACT CII. German law hooks directly into this norm: an invoice qualifies as an E-Rechnung if it conforms to EN 16931 or to an agreed format from which the required data can be extracted interoperably.

Every format below is therefore a different packaging of the same data model. That has a practical consequence for processing: a system that understands the Business Terms once can read all compliant formats, and differences reduce to syntax handling.

XRechnung: the German reference profile

XRechnung is the German Core Invoice Usage Specification of EN 16931, maintained by KoSIT (the Koordinierungsstelle für IT-Standards) under the XStandards Einkauf umbrella; version 3.0.2 is current as of September 2026. It is pure XML, in either UBL or CII syntax, with no human-readable layer; senders choose the syntax and receivers must accept both.

XRechnung is mandatory territory in public-sector invoicing: since November 27, 2020 suppliers to federal authorities must submit e-invoices (E-Rechnungsverordnung), routed via portals like ZRE and OZG-RE using a Leitweg-ID that addresses the receiving authority. In B2B it is equally valid, and its all-XML nature makes it the cleanest format for fully automated pipelines; the trade-off is that a human can only read it through a viewer.

ZUGFeRD: the hybrid

ZUGFeRD, maintained by FeRD (Forum elektronische Rechnung Deutschland), embeds a CII XML data record inside a PDF/A-3 document: one file, readable by humans as a PDF and by machines as XML. The format iterates quickly; after 2.3.3 came version 2.4 (effective January 2026, adding sub-line-item support) and the 2.5 line, with 2.5.2 current as of September 2026. It is technically compatible with France’s Factur-X.

ZUGFeRD comes in profiles of increasing data depth: MINIMUM, BASIC-WL, BASIC, EN 16931 (formerly COMFORT), EXTENDED, and an XRECHNUNG reference profile. The profile choice is not cosmetic: per the BMF guidance, the MINIMUM and BASIC-WL profiles do not satisfy the e-invoice definition, because they carry too little structured data. And since the BMF letter of October 15, 2025, the embedded XML, not the visible PDF, is the legally authoritative representation in a hybrid invoice.

Peppol: network first, format second

Peppol is best understood as the delivery infrastructure: a four-corner network in which sender and receiver each connect through a certified Access Point, addressed by Peppol participant IDs. Its invoice format, Peppol BIS Billing 3.0, is itself an EN 16931 Core Invoice Usage Specification, so an invoice arriving over Peppol is a compliant e-invoice. KoSIT acts as the German Peppol authority, and German public-sector receivers use the network with the 0204 Leitweg-ID scheme.

Peppol’s strength is scale and reach: structured delivery with delivery confirmation, no bilateral channel setup per partner, and international coverage well beyond Germany. For high-volume B2B invoicing, and for businesses already invoicing public-sector customers over Peppol, it is the most future-proof transmission path; several EU countries are building their own mandates on it.

Choosing in practice

SituationPractical choice
Invoicing German federal or state authorities (B2G)XRechnung, delivered via the prescribed portal or Peppol, addressed with the customer’s Leitweg-ID
B2B with partners of every size, transition-friendlyZUGFeRD in profile EN 16931 or higher: machines read the XML, smaller partners still see a PDF
High volume, automated AP/AR on both sidesXRechnung or Peppol BIS Billing 3.0, transmitted over Peppol for confirmation and routing
International invoicing beyond GermanyPeppol BIS Billing 3.0, or country-specific EN 16931 profiles (e.g. Factur-X in France, technically aligned with ZUGFeRD)
Existing EDI relationshipsKeep EDI through 2027 with consent; from 2028 ensure EN 16931-interoperable data extraction or switch the channel

Receivers do not get to choose: from 2025 you must handle whatever compliant format arrives, XML-only and hybrid alike.

Processing the format mix

The formats question looks different from the receiving side. Your suppliers will collectively use all of the above, plus paper and plain PDFs during the transition. The robust setup is one intake pipeline that validates structured invoices (syntax and business rules), extracts the same Business-Term fields from every format, applies your own schema checks, and archives the originals unaltered.

That is the design behind Talonic’s invoice processing: XRechnung XML, ZUGFeRD hybrids, Peppol invoices, and scanned paper all resolve into one schema-validated output, with a confidence score and source provenance on every field, processed on EU infrastructure in Germany. The free Peppol extractor below shows the field model on a real e-invoice.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between XRechnung and ZUGFeRD?+

XRechnung is pure XML, machine-readable only, and the reference profile for German public-sector invoicing. ZUGFeRD is a hybrid: a PDF/A-3 with the same kind of EN 16931 XML embedded, so humans read the PDF while systems read the data record. Since the 2025 BMF letter, the embedded XML is the legally authoritative part of a hybrid invoice.

Which ZUGFeRD profiles count as valid e-invoices?+

The profiles with full EN 16931 data: EN 16931 (formerly COMFORT), EXTENDED, and the XRECHNUNG reference profile, from ZUGFeRD version 2.x. Per the BMF guidance, the MINIMUM and BASIC-WL profiles do not satisfy the statutory e-invoice definition.

Is Peppol a format or a network?+

Primarily a network: certified Access Points exchange documents in a four-corner model. It also standardizes the payload, Peppol BIS Billing 3.0, which conforms to EN 16931, so "an invoice via Peppol" is both a delivery path and a compliant format.

Which format is required for invoices to German authorities?+

Federal receivers require e-invoices per the E-Rechnungsverordnung, in practice XRechnung (Peppol BIS is also accepted through the Peppol channel), addressed with the authority’s Leitweg-ID and submitted via portals such as ZRE/OZG-RE or via Peppol. The German states run their own, closely related regimes.

Can one system process all formats?+

Yes, and that is the point of EN 16931: all compliant formats express the same Business Terms. A parser that reads UBL and CII syntax and unpacks PDF/A-3 hybrids covers XRechnung, ZUGFeRD, and Peppol BIS. The practical extra work is the non-compliant remainder, PDFs and scans, which is where schema-validated extraction earns its keep.

Sources

Primary sources, last checked September 2026. Statutory texts and BMF publications are authoritative; where guidance rests on the BMF letter of 15 October 2025, the text says so.

This guide is general information for businesses, compiled from the cited official sources. It is not legal or tax advice; for decisions about your own obligations, consult your tax advisor (Steuerberater).

One inbox, every invoice format, one schema

The mandate makes structured formats the norm, but your accounts payable will keep receiving paper scans and plain PDFs beside XRechnung and ZUGFeRD for years. Talonic normalizes that mixed inflow into one schema-validated output: typed fields, a confidence score, and provenance on every value, processed on EU infrastructure in Germany. Send a sample batch and judge the output field by field.