Learn how Joplin and Logseq differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these note-taking tools is best for you.
Stars
Forks
Last commit
Repository age
Self-hosted
Auto-fetched .

Auto-fetched .

Both Joplin and Logseq have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Both tools have similar popularity levels, with Joplin having 54,454 stars and Logseq having 42,293 stars on GitHub. In terms of developer contributions, Joplin has 6,064 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Both projects show recent activity, with Joplin last updated 14 hours ago and Logseq 11 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript, JSX, C, Objective-C, Java, Swift, Kotlin, MATLAB. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Joplin uses Python, SCSS, Rust, Ruby, C++ while Logseq leverages Clojure.
Joplin has been in development longer, starting 9 years ago, compared to Logseq which began 6 years ago. This 3.4-year head start suggests Joplin may have more mature features and established processes.
Logseq is licensed under AGPL-3.0, while Joplin's license terms are not publicly specified.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Note-Taking, Personal Knowledge Management (PKM). However, they also have distinct specializations: Joplin also focuses on Secure & Encrypted Notes.
Both Joplin and Logseq offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs