Category: Reviews · Stage: Decision

By Chaos Content Team

Obsidian and Logseq are both local-first, markdown-based knowledge management tools with graph views. Both have passionate communities. Both promise networked thought.

The fundamental difference: page-based thinking vs. block-based thinking.

After 60 days building knowledge bases in each (30 days per tool), here's which philosophy wins for different types of thinkers.

The Philosophical Split

Obsidian: Page-centric. Each note is a document. Links connect documents to documents.

Logseq: Block-centric. Everything is a bullet point (block). Links connect blocks to blocks.

Why this matters: It changes how you think, capture, and retrieve information.

What Is Logseq's Block-Based Approach?

Every piece of information is a block (bullet point).

Example Logseq daily note:

- Meeting with Sarah about marketing project
  - Budget: £15,000
  - Timeline: 6 weeks
  - [[Project/Marketing-Q4]]
  - TODO Follow up on budget approval
- Idea: [[PKM]] systems should prioritize retrieval over capture
  - Most people over-organize and under-review
  - Related: [[Productivity/Second-Brain]]

Each bullet is a block. Each block can be:

Referenced individually
Linked to from other blocks
Tagged and queried
Embedded elsewhere

Philosophy: Capture atomically. Connect later. Don't pre-organize into pages.

What Is Obsidian's Page-Based Approach?

Notes are documents. Links connect documents.

Example Obsidian notes:

# Meeting - Sarah - Marketing Project

Date: 2025-08-12
Project: [[Marketing Q4 Campaign]]

## Discussion Points
- Budget approved: £15,000
- Timeline: 6 weeks starting Monday
- Need to coordinate with [[Sarah Thompson]]

## Next Steps
- [ ] Follow up on budget approval
- [ ] Schedule kickoff meeting

---

# PKM Systems Should Prioritize Retrieval

Most knowledge management systems optimize for capture and organization.

The real bottleneck: retrieval. Getting information back out when you need it.

Related notes:
- [[Second Brain Building Guide]]
- [[Productivity Systems]]

Philosophy: Think in documents. Create pages for concepts. Link pages together.

Testing Methodology: 60 Days

Built two knowledge bases with identical content:

Content: 120 notes about productivity, technology, project notes, meeting logs, personal thoughts
Time period: 30 days actively using each tool
Workflow: Captured daily notes, organized knowledge, retrieved information for real projects

Metrics tracked:

Time to capture new information
Time to organize/connect information
Time to retrieve specific information
Graph structure and usefulness
Learning curve and frustration

Logseq (Days 1-30)

Week 1: Confusing but Intriguing

Coming from traditional note-taking, block-based thinking felt odd.

"Why is everything a bullet point? Where are my documents?"

But something clicked in Week 2.

Week 2-4: The Block-Based Breakthrough

Realized I was thinking differently. Instead of "what page does this belong in?" I just captured blocks and tagged them.

Example: Captured insight about productivity during meeting notes. Tagged [[Productivity]]. Done.

Later, searching for [[Productivity]] showed all related blocks from meetings, projects, and dedicated notes. Didn't need to file the insight—it connected automatically.

Results:

Capture time: Very fast (2-3 seconds per thought)
Organization time: Minimal (tags handle most of it)
Retrieval: Good (queries are powerful)
Frustration: Medium (learning curve for queries)

What worked:

Daily notes became central hub
Block references created automatic connections
Queries surfaced related information
No "where should I put this?" decisions

What didn't:

Long-form writing felt awkward (everything is bullets)
Graph view less useful (too many block connections)
Mobile app inferior to Obsidian's
Plugin ecosystem smaller

Logseq's Best Features

1. Block References

Reference any block from anywhere.

Example: Meeting note includes block about budget. Reference that exact block in project planning note. When budget changes, it updates everywhere.

2. Powerful Queries

Find blocks matching criteria.

Example query: "Show all TODO blocks tagged #project-x that are not completed"

Logseq automatically generates list from across all notes.

3. No Organization Anxiety

Just capture. Tags and queries handle retrieval.

Obsidian (Days 31-60)

Week 1: Immediately Familiar

Page-based notes felt natural. Create document, write, link to related documents.

No learning curve. If you've used any note app, you understand Obsidian.

Week 2-4: The Organization Challenge

With 120 notes, organization became critical.

Question: What structure? Folders by topic? Tags? MOCs (Maps of Content)?

Spent hours organizing. Created folder structure. Then restructured. Then abandoned folders for tags and MOCs.

The Obsidian paradox: Flexibility is powerful but overwhelming. You can organize however you want, so you spend time deciding how to organize.

Results:

Capture time: Fast (5-10 seconds per note)
Organization time: High (30+ min/week structuring)
Retrieval: Excellent (once organized)
Frustration: Low (familiar, polished UX)

What worked:

Long-form writing is natural
Graph view beautiful and useful (document connections make sense)
Plugin ecosystem massive (1,000+ plugins)
Mobile app excellent
Canvas feature great for visual thinking

What didn't:

Organization overhead
Easy to over-organize and under-use
Atomic note philosophy conflicts with page-based structure

Obsidian's Best Features

1. Massive Plugin Ecosystem

1,000+ community plugins.

Examples:

Dataview (query notes like database)
Kanban boards
Calendar view
Advanced tables
PDF annotation
Spaced repetition

Whatever workflow you imagine, there's probably a plugin.

2. Canvas for Visual Thinking

Spatial arrangement of notes and ideas.

Great for:

Project planning
Concept mapping
Visual brainstorming

3. Beautiful Graph View

Obsidian's graph actually looks good and provides insights about note connections.

Logseq's graph is functional but overwhelming (block-level granularity creates visual noise).

Feature Comparison

| Feature | Obsidian | Logseq | |---------|----------|---------| | Philosophy | Page-based | Block-based | | Learning curve | Low | Medium | | Capture speed | Fast | Very fast | | Organization overhead | High (flexible) | Low (tags/queries) | | Long-form writing | Excellent | Awkward | | Graph view | Beautiful, useful | Overwhelming | | Plugin ecosystem | Massive (1,000+) | Growing (~100) | | Mobile apps | Excellent | Good | | Queries | Via Dataview plugin | Native, powerful | | Sync | Paid ($10/month) or DIY | Free via Git/Dropbox | | Pricing | Free (sync paid) | Free |

Which Thinking Style Wins?

Block-based (Logseq) excels for:

1. Rapid capture and connection Don't think about structure. Just capture, tag, query later.

2. Atomic note-taking If you naturally think in small, discrete thoughts rather than essays.

3. Daily note workflows Logseq's daily notes are its strength. Everything starts there.

4. Research and synthesis Collecting snippets from various sources, then querying to synthesize.

Page-based (Obsidian) excels for:

1. Long-form thinking and writing Essays, project documentation, detailed analysis.

2. Traditional organization If you prefer folder structures or clear hierarchies.

3. Visual thinkers Canvas and beautiful graph view support spatial thinking.

4. Power users wanting customization Plugin ecosystem enables almost anything.

Use Case Recommendations

Choose Logseq if:

You want minimal organization overhead
You think in small, connected insights
Daily notes are your primary workflow
You do research requiring synthesis across sources
You're comfortable with bullet-based thinking
You want powerful native queries

Choose Obsidian if:

You write long-form content
You prefer traditional note organization
You want extensive customization via plugins
You're visual thinker who uses graph views
You need excellent mobile experience
You want polished, familiar interface

Choose both if:

You're knowledge management enthusiast experimenting with approaches
You use Logseq for quick capture, Obsidian for long-form synthesis
You export Logseq's markdown to Obsidian for writing
You're researcher who benefits from both paradigms

Choose neither if:

You have simple note needs (<50 notes total)
You're satisfied with Apple Notes or Notion
You don't want local-first complexity
You prefer guided structure over flexibility

My Personal Verdict After 60 Days

Started as Obsidian advocate. Became Logseq convert—with caveats.

Why Logseq won me over:

The block-based approach actually changed how I think. Stopped agonizing about "where does this note belong?" and just captured thoughts with tags.

Queries are genuinely powerful for retrieving information across disparate notes.

But Obsidian is better for:

Long-form writing. When I need to write an essay or detailed documentation, Obsidian's page-based approach is superior.

Polish and mobile experience.

My hybrid solution:

Daily capture and knowledge connection in Logseq. Long-form writing in Obsidian. Both read the same markdown files in the same folder.

Forces me to get benefits of both approaches.

Key Takeaways

Obsidian and Logseq both offer markdown-based, local-first knowledge management with graph views—but fundamental philosophies differ. Obsidian is page-centric (notes are documents). Logseq is block-centric (everything is connected bullet points).

Block-based thinking (Logseq) reduces organization overhead. No decisions about "where does this belong?"—just capture with tags, retrieve with queries. Powerful for rapid capture and cross-note synthesis.

Page-based thinking (Obsidian) better for long-form work. Essays, documentation, detailed analysis feel natural. Beautiful graph view and massive plugin ecosystem (1,000+ plugins) enable extensive customization.

Learning curves differ significantly. Obsidian feels immediately familiar (it's just notes and links). Logseq requires 1-2 weeks understanding block-based paradigm—but payoff is worth it for daily note workflows.

Mobile and polish favor Obsidian. Obsidian's mobile app is excellent. Graph view is beautiful. UI is polished. Logseq is functional but less refined.

Both are free with local-first data ownership. Obsidian charges $10/month for official sync (or DIY with Dropbox/Git). Logseq sync is free via Git/cloud storage. Both store markdown files you own forever.

Sources: 60-day testing, 120 notes per system, comparison of knowledge management paradigms

Obsidian vs Logseq: Which Knowledge Graph Wins for PKM?