While both Logseq and Obsidian are excellent knowledge management tools, Logseq offers some distinct advantages that might make it more suitable for your workflow:

Why Logseq might be a better choice

  • Outliner-First Approach - Logseq’s hierarchical bullet-point structure makes organizing thoughts more intuitive. You can easily nest ideas and create structured content without worrying about formatting.

  • Bidirectional Linking by Default - While Obsidian has backlinks, Logseq treats every reference as truly bidirectional, making connections between ideas more seamless.

  • Daily Notes as Standard - Logseq automatically creates daily journals, encouraging regular documentation and making it easier to track thoughts chronologically.

  • Open Source Philosophy - Logseq is fully open-source, which means greater transparency and community involvement in its development.

  • Graph Database Backend - The underlying architecture makes complex queries and connections between your notes more powerful.

  • Block References - You can reference and embed specific blocks (not just pages) throughout your notes, creating more granular connections.

  • Task Management Built-In - Logseq has robust task management features with TODO states, priorities, and deadlines integrated directly into your notes.

  • Whiteboarding Capabilities - Recent updates have added excellent whiteboarding features that combine well with the outliner approach.

Summary Comparison

Feature Logseq Obsidian
Core Structure Outliner-based (bullet points) Document-based (markdown files)
Linking Bidirectional by default Backlinks as a feature
Daily Notes Automatically created and integrated Available as a plugin
Source Code Fully open-source Closed source with open plugin API
Backend Graph database File-based system
Referencing Block-level references Page-level references primarily
Task Management Built-in TODO system with states Requires plugins for robust task management
Whiteboarding Integrated whiteboard capabilities Available through plugins
Data Storage Local plain text files (.md/.org) Local plain text files (.md)
Pricing Free, open-source Free core, paid sync service

Where Obsidian Still Shines

It’s important to acknowledge Obsidian’s strengths that make this decision difficult:

  • Mature plugin ecosystem: Thousands of community plugins for customization
  • Document-centric approach: Better for long-form writing and publishing
  • Performance with large vaults: Generally handles massive collections better
  • Polished UI/UX: More refined interface and smoother experience
  • Themes and customization: More options for personalizing appearance
  • Mobile experience: Generally considered more mature on mobile devices

Conclusion

For now, my priority is mature ecosystem, document-centric approach, and polished experienced. Thus, Obsidian it is.