8 Best Note Taking Apps Compared: Obsidian vs Popular Alternatives (2025)

Have you ever spent hours searching through scattered digital notes, knowing you wrote something important but unable to find it when you need it most? When I first started my academic work, I faced this exact frustration. My research notes were spread across different applications, my thoughts existed in isolation, and I constantly felt like I was losing valuable insights in the chaos.

Traditional note-taking applications failed me repeatedly. I would capture brilliant ideas during research sessions, only to discover weeks later that they were buried in some forgotten folder or lost among hundreds of similarly-named files. What I needed wasn't just another digital notebook—I needed a system that could grow with my thinking and reveal connections between concepts as they developed.

This search led me to discover Obsidian, and I can honestly say it changed how I approach academic work. Unlike conventional note-taking software that treats each note as an isolated document, Obsidian creates what feels like a living knowledge base where ideas connect naturally. The application offers hundreds of user-built plugins and customization options, but what impressed me most was how it's designed to "sharpen your thinking" by helping you build genuine knowledge structures.

Several features make Obsidian particularly valuable for academic work. The application works completely offline and stores all data locally on your device—a crucial consideration when working with sensitive research materials. It uses Markdown for formatting (which I initially found intimidating but now appreciate for its simplicity), organizes information through flexible folder structures, and provides the distraction-free environment that deep academic work requires. Perhaps most importantly, Obsidian's graph view functions like what I can only describe as a "Hubble Telescope for your thoughts," revealing connections between notes that you might never have noticed otherwise.

I should be honest about one thing: Obsidian does have a steeper learning curve than other applications on this list. When I first started using it, I sometimes questioned whether the effort was worth it. However, for researchers who need to develop complex knowledge structures without constantly switching between different programs, this initial investment pays substantial dividends. All features are available free for personal use, which removes the financial barrier that often prevents academics from accessing powerful tools.

As we examine Obsidian alongside popular alternatives like Notion, OneNote, and Roam Research, you'll discover which approach best matches your specific academic workflow. My goal is to share what I've learned through trial and error, so you can avoid the same frustrations I experienced and find a system that actually supports your thinking rather than hindering it.

Obsidian

_{Image Source: obsidian.md}

Rather than thinking of Obsidian as just another note-taking application, I consider it a knowledge management system that fundamentally changes how academic work gets done. This markdown-based platform creates what I can best describe as a networked knowledge base—your ideas don't sit in isolation but connect naturally as your understanding develops.

Obsidian key features

The foundation of Obsidian rests on its local-first architecture. Every note lives directly on your device, which means complete privacy—no one, including Obsidian's developers, can access your information. Your research remains available even without internet connectivity, making it perfect for those focused work sessions where distractions need to disappear entirely.

Markdown formatting powers the writing experience. Headers require simple hashtags, while asterisks create bold and italicized text. This plain text approach ensures your notes remain accessible long-term, even if you eventually switch to different software. The beauty lies in its simplicity—you focus on content rather than formatting.

Here's where Obsidian becomes truly different: its linking capabilities. Type double brackets around any phrase, and you create a connection to another note, essentially building your personal Wikipedia. This backlinking system reveals which notes reference each other, creating a web of knowledge rather than isolated documents sitting in folders.

The Graph View transforms these connections into an interactive map of your knowledge base. As your collection grows, this visualization helps identify patterns and relationships between concepts that might otherwise remain hidden. Think of it as seeing the forest instead of individual trees.

For those who think spatially, Obsidian's Canvas feature provides an infinite whiteboard where you can arrange and connect ideas visually. You can embed canvases within other canvases, creating nested levels of organization perfect for complex research projects. This addresses the limitation of traditional linear note-taking that constrains how we naturally think about relationships between ideas.

The most significant advantage comes through customization via plugins. With over 1,000 community-developed extensions, you can transform the application to match your specific workflow needs—from Kanban boards to calendar views and AI assistants. This modularity means the system grows with your requirements rather than forcing you to adapt to rigid structures.

Obsidian pros and cons

Pros:

• Lightning-fast performance compared to other note-taking apps
• Complete privacy with local storage and optional end-to-end encryption
• Flexible customization through extensive plugin ecosystem
• Files stored in open Markdown format, preventing vendor lock-in
• Seamless cross-platform experience across desktop and mobile devices
• Visual knowledge mapping through Graph View and Canvas

Cons:

• Steeper learning curve for beginners unfamiliar with Markdown
• Interface aesthetics considered less polished than some alternatives
• Advanced features often require plugins and additional configuration
• No native collaboration features for team projects
• Lack of advanced database capabilities compared to apps like Notion

Obsidian pricing

Obsidian follows a refreshingly straightforward pricing model:

Obsidian best for

PhD researchers and academics benefit most from Obsidian's comprehensive approach to managing complex information. The ability to create connected notes makes it particularly valuable for literature reviews, theoretical frameworks, and research journals where seeing relationships between concepts matters more than simply storing information.

Writers find Obsidian's distraction-free environment ideal for linking sources and research materials seamlessly. The application becomes increasingly valuable as your knowledge base grows, revealing connections between seemingly unrelated concepts that would remain invisible in traditional folder-based systems.

Students managing multiple subjects can create separate vaults for different courses while maintaining links between related concepts across disciplines. This organizational flexibility adapts to how learning actually happens rather than forcing artificial boundaries.

The key advantage lies in eliminating constant program-switching. Instead of jumping between reference managers, writing applications, and project trackers, Obsidian serves as your central workspace—combining note-taking, writing, project management, and knowledge organization in one unified environment. This integration eliminates the cognitive cost of context-switching that undermines productivity during intensive research phases.

Notion

_{Image Source: Notion}

When I first encountered Notion, I was impressed by its ambition to be everything to everyone. This cloud-based workspace takes a fundamentally different approach than Obsidian, attempting to combine note-taking, databases, task management, and collaboration within a single platform. On paper, this sounds like exactly what academics need—one tool to rule them all.

How Notion approaches information management

Notion built its foundation on a block-based architecture where every piece of content—text, images, tables, or tasks—exists as a movable, editable block. I found this flexibility appealing initially because you can structure information precisely as needed. However, after working with it for several weeks, the system felt less intuitive than traditional document editors when I simply wanted to write.

The platform's database capabilities represent its strongest feature, offering multiple ways to visualize the same information. You can switch between list, table, board, calendar, gallery, and timeline views with a single click. When I was organizing research materials for a literature review, this proved genuinely useful for seeing patterns across different organizational schemes.

Notion provides real-time collaboration features that work seamlessly—multiple people can edit documents simultaneously, leave comments, and mention team members. Unlike Obsidian, everything syncs automatically across Windows, macOS, iOS, Android, and web browsers without requiring additional subscriptions. For research teams, this represents a significant advantage.

However, Notion's workspace structure organizes content into pages and nested sub-pages accessible through the sidebar. While this hierarchical approach facilitates basic organization, it lacks the free-form linking capabilities that make Obsidian's knowledge graph so powerful for academic thinking. You end up with folders and pages instead of a web of interconnected ideas.

What works and what doesn't

Strengths I discovered:

• Beginner-friendly interface with drag-and-drop functionality
• Excellent collaboration tools included even in free plans
• Visually appealing with customizable covers and icons
• Versatile database features for organizing complex information
• Native integration with tools like Slack and GitHub

Limitations that frustrated me:

• Limited offline capabilities—you can only edit pages previously opened while online
• Data stored on cloud servers raises potential privacy concerns
• Often overwhelming with too many features to master effectively
• Can feel sluggish when working with large workspaces
• Lacks the sophisticated linking system academics need for knowledge synthesis

Notion pricing structure

Notion offers four pricing tiers with increasing capabilities:

Notion AI writing assistant costs an additional £6.35/user/month when billed annually.

Where Notion fits in academic workflows

After extensive testing, I found that Notion primarily serves project managers and analysts who need a tool that handles both notes and databases. Its ability to create linked workspaces makes it suitable for teams collaborating on shared projects.

Notion works well for visual thinkers who prefer structured organization over Obsidian's free-form approach. The platform excels at documenting processes and creating knowledge bases for team reference. If you're coordinating research with multiple collaborators, Notion's real-time editing capabilities can be genuinely valuable.

Despite these strengths, I discovered that Notion falls short for PhD researchers conducting deep academic work. The lack of sophisticated linking capabilities limits how you can develop complex theoretical frameworks. Where Obsidian's knowledge graph reveals unexpected connections between concepts, Notion keeps your ideas trapped in separate pages and databases.

Furthermore, Notion's cloud-based architecture introduces privacy concerns when working with sensitive research materials. For academics who need to maintain complete control over their data, this represents a significant limitation.

The biggest issue I encountered was the constant feature creep. Notion tries to do everything, which means it doesn't excel at the deep knowledge work that academic research requires. You end up spending time configuring databases and adjusting layouts instead of developing ideas.

For academics seeking a single environment to develop sophisticated knowledge structures without constantly switching between programs, Obsidian remains the superior choice. Notion offers value as a complementary tool for managing research projects, especially those involving collaboration with colleagues, but it cannot serve as your primary thinking environment.

Microsoft OneNote

_{Image Source: IT Champion}

Microsoft OneNote represents the conventional approach to digital note-taking that most academics encounter first. Since its launch in 2003, this application has served as the default choice for Windows users, particularly those already embedded in the Microsoft ecosystem.

Microsoft OneNote key features

OneNote's digital notebook structure follows the familiar metaphor of physical notebooks with sections and pages. You can click anywhere on the canvas to start typing, drawing, or inserting content—a design that replicates the freedom of paper while adding digital capabilities.

The application handles multimedia integration effectively, allowing you to embed audio recordings, images, and files directly within notes. A particularly useful feature syncs your typing with audio recordings, so you can hear exactly what was being said when you wrote specific notes. This proves valuable during interviews or lectures where context matters.

OneNote offers robust drawing and handwriting capabilities that work well with stylus input on compatible devices. You can sketch diagrams, write by hand, and work with mathematical equations—features that make it appealing for visual note-takers and educators.

The built-in web clipper captures entire web pages or selected portions directly to your notebooks. Unlike basic screenshot tools, OneNote provides a preview and includes highlighting options before saving content.

Microsoft recently integrated Copilot AI assistant into OneNote, enabling summary generation and content drafting through natural language prompts. This represents a significant advantage over applications that lack integrated AI capabilities.

Microsoft OneNote pros and cons

Pros:

• Seamless integration with Microsoft 365 applications
• Excellent handwriting support and drawing tools
• Real-time collaboration capabilities
• Versatile web clipping functionality
• Native AI assistant through Microsoft Copilot
• Cross-platform availability with strong mobile apps

Cons:

• Limited offline capabilities for non-Windows users
• Occasional syncing issues between devices
• More cluttered interface compared to minimalist alternatives
• Lack of visualized note interlinking (unlike Obsidian's graph view)
• Limited export options restricting portability
• Premium features require Microsoft 365 subscription

Microsoft OneNote pricing

OneNote follows a straightforward pricing structure:

Microsoft OneNote best for

OneNote works well for education professionals who benefit from equation support, drawing capabilities, and structured organization. The application handles lecture notes and classroom collaboration effectively.

The tool particularly serves visual note-takers who prefer handwriting and sketching over pure text input. Stylus support on tablets creates a natural writing experience that purely digital interfaces cannot replicate.

For those already working within the Microsoft ecosystem, OneNote provides unmatched integration with Outlook, Teams, and other Office applications. This interconnection simplifies certain workflows but creates dependency on Microsoft's platforms.

However, OneNote's limitations become apparent when conducting serious academic research. The application lacks sophisticated linking between notes—a critical capability for PhD researchers developing complex theoretical frameworks. You cannot easily see connections between concepts or build the kind of knowledge networks that sophisticated research requires.

Furthermore, OneNote's organization system proves inflexible when dealing with evolving research concepts that don't fit neatly into predetermined sections and pages. As your research develops, you may find yourself constrained by the rigid notebook structure rather than supported by it.

While OneNote serves effectively as a digital notebook replacement, it falls short as a comprehensive research environment. Academics who need to develop interconnected knowledge structures without constantly switching between programs will find its conventional approach limiting rather than liberating.

Joplin

_{Image Source: Productivity Directory}

When I first heard about Joplin in 2017, the promise of complete data ownership appealed to me immediately. Created by solo developer Laurent Cozic, this open-source application seemed to offer everything I wanted: privacy, control, and the ability to organize research without depending on corporate cloud services.

I decided to test Joplin extensively during a particularly sensitive research project where data privacy was paramount. The experience taught me valuable lessons about what works—and what doesn't—when you need both security and functionality.

How Joplin approaches note organization

Joplin organizes information through a digital notebook system that closely resembles traditional notebooks. You can create notebooks and sub-notebooks to structure research hierarchically, which I found helpful when organizing different aspects of complex academic projects. The system allows virtually unlimited nesting, so you can organize as precisely or as broadly as your work requires.

What impressed me most was Joplin's dual-editor approach to formatting. The application supports both Markdown and rich-text formatting, allowing you to type in Markdown on one side while seeing the rendered result on the other. If you prefer, you can switch entirely to rich text. This flexibility proved valuable when collaborating with colleagues who weren't comfortable with Markdown.

The application's encryption capabilities represent its strongest feature. Joplin offers end-to-end encryption for notes synced via cloud services, using robust AES-256 standards. When working with sensitive research data, this level of security provided peace of mind that cloud-first alternatives simply cannot match.

For research gathering, Joplin's Web Clipper browser extension works with Chrome and Firefox, allowing you to save entire web pages, specific sections, or screenshots directly to your notebooks. This feature helped me compile literature reviews without constantly jumping between browser and note-taking application—a workflow improvement I genuinely appreciated.

The application also supports extensive customization through plugins. With over a hundred available plugins, you can enhance functionality beyond basic note-taking, from creating spreadsheets to improving search capabilities.

What works and what doesn't

Strengths I discovered:

• Complete privacy with end-to-end encryption
• Free to use with unlimited local storage
• High customization potential through plugins
• Works across Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, and Android
• Open-source architecture ensures long-term access

Limitations that frustrated me:

• Interface feels less polished than commercial alternatives
• Desktop app performance occasionally lagged with larger notebooks
• Collaboration features limited in free version
• Manual setup required for encryption (not difficult, but an extra step)
• Learning curve required to maximize plugin benefits

Joplin pricing structure

Joplin follows a transparent pricing model:

*Per user, minimum 2 users

Joplin offers a 50% education discount for students and teachers, which makes the paid features quite accessible for academic budgets.

Who should consider Joplin

Joplin excels for privacy-conscious researchers who need complete control over sensitive research data. If your work involves confidential information or you simply prefer keeping everything local, Joplin's encryption options provide security that cloud-first alternatives cannot match.

The application also serves cross-platform academics well. With support for every major operating system, your research remains accessible regardless of which device you're using—a genuine advantage if you work across different environments.

Joplin particularly benefits independent researchers who don't require extensive collaboration features. Its organizational structure works well for solo projects where knowledge management takes precedence over team coordination.

However, I must be honest about a significant limitation: Joplin lacks the sophisticated linking capabilities that make Obsidian ideal for complex theoretical frameworks. During my testing, I found Obsidian's knowledge graph far more conducive to identifying connections between research concepts than Joplin's traditional notebook structure.

For PhD researchers who need to develop intricate knowledge structures, Joplin provides solid, privacy-focused note-taking but falls short as a comprehensive research environment. I found it works best either as a privacy-focused alternative for specific projects or as a complementary tool within a broader research workflow. The question becomes whether privacy concerns outweigh the connectivity limitations for your particular research needs.

Apple Notes

Apple Notes comes pre-installed on every Apple device, and I'll admit—I used it for years before discovering better alternatives. What started as a simple app for grocery lists has grown into something more capable, and many Apple users never look beyond it for their note-taking needs.

If you're already embedded in the Apple ecosystem, Apple Notes offers some genuine conveniences that are hard to ignore.

What Apple Notes Does Well

The seamless ecosystem integration remains Apple Notes' strongest selling point. Your notes sync instantly across iPhones, iPads, and Macs without any setup required. The Quick Notes feature lets you swipe from the bottom-right corner to jot something down without even opening the app—genuinely helpful when inspiration strikes.

For basic organization, Apple Notes uses a folder-based system with smart folders that automatically sort notes based on criteria you set. You can create rules to filter by date created, checklists, or attachments. This works fine for simple categorization.

The app handles rich text formatting reasonably well, offering headings, lists, tables, and checklists. You can add photos, scan documents, and record audio with live transcription in newer versions. For visual note-takers, handwriting recognition converts handwritten content to digital text, and secure encryption protects sensitive notes with Face ID or Touch ID.

Apple Notes Strengths and Limitations

What works:

• Fast performance with quick note creation
• End-to-end encryption for locked notes
• Clean, distraction-free interface
• Excellent search across text and attachments
• Tags and smart folders for basic organization
• No learning curve if you're already using Apple devices

What doesn't work:

• Limited cross-platform accessibility—essentially unavailable for Android/Windows users
• Basic 5GB free iCloud storage shared across all Apple services
• No highlighting text functionality
• Poor web usability compared to alternatives
• Limited linking capabilities between notes
• No version history for tracking changes

Apple Notes Pricing

When Apple Notes Makes Sense

Apple Notes works well for users who need straightforward note-taking within the Apple ecosystem. It handles quick thoughts, simple checklists, and basic organization without any fuss.

However, I discovered its limitations quickly when my research work became more serious. Apple Notes lacks the ability to visualize connections between notes—something that becomes crucial when you're developing theoretical frameworks or conducting literature reviews. Without meaningful ways to link ideas together, you end up with what feels like "just the boring tags and folders you see in every productivity app".

The limited backlinking capabilities and poor export functions create additional friction for academic work. When I needed to trace how concepts connected across different projects, Apple Notes left me manually searching through folders rather than revealing those connections naturally.

Apple Notes serves adequately as a quick capture tool, but it doesn't grow with your thinking the way more sophisticated applications do. For researchers who need their notes to evolve into a genuine knowledge system, the limitations become apparent fairly quickly.

Logseq

Logseq takes a completely different approach to knowledge management than the applications we've discussed so far. Instead of treating notes as documents or pages, this open-source application structures everything through bullet points that form hierarchical relationships. When I first encountered Logseq, I was intrigued by its outliner-first philosophy—it felt like a digital version of how I naturally organize thoughts on paper.

Logseq key features

The application functions as a block-based outliner where every piece of information exists within a bullet list structure. This organizational method allows you to structure information through indentation, creating parent-child relationships between content blocks. What I found particularly clever is how each indented block automatically inherits tags and links from its parent, establishing connections without requiring manual linking.

Logseq prioritizes privacy and data ownership through its open-source architecture. The code is publicly available, which means you can examine it for security vulnerabilities or even fork the project if development were to cease. This transparency provides confidence when working with sensitive research materials—something I appreciate given my own concerns about data control.

The application excels with its PDF annotation tools, offering functionality that surpasses Obsidian without requiring additional plugins. You can embed PDFs directly, highlight passages, and create linked notes with a single click. The video annotation capabilities also allow time-stamped notes linked directly to specific moments, which proves useful for research interviews or lecture recordings.

The daily journal feature encourages a workflow where you begin each day with a fresh canvas, using it as a starting point for capturing thoughts before organizing them. This approach mimics the physical notebooks I discussed earlier while adding digital advantages.

Logseq pros and cons

Pros:

• Open-source architecture ensuring transparency and longevity
• Block-based organization with inherited relationships
• Superior PDF and video annotation capabilities
• Daily journaling as a core feature
• Powerful query syntax for filtering information

Cons:

• Steeper learning curve for outliner interface
• Performance issues on some Windows systems
• Limited long-form writing environment
• Still in beta development stage
• Requires adjustment for those accustomed to free-form notes

Logseq pricing

Logseq best for

Logseq works well for researchers who think in structured hierarchies rather than free-form connections. Its block-based structure excels for breaking down complex thoughts into smaller, manageable units—something that appeals to methodical thinkers who prefer clear organization.

However, I discovered significant limitations when trying to use Logseq for comprehensive academic work. While its outliner format helps organize hierarchical information efficiently, it constrains the long-form writing that academic work often requires. When I needed to draft manuscripts or develop extended arguments, I found myself switching to dedicated writing applications—precisely the context-switching that I was trying to avoid.

The application remains in beta development, which creates occasional stability concerns that could interrupt focused research sessions. These limitations make Logseq better suited as a complementary tool rather than the comprehensive research environment that academics need to develop complex ideas without program-switching.

For those comfortable with outliner-based thinking, Logseq offers interesting possibilities. Yet, for PhD researchers who need a single environment to handle everything from note-taking to manuscript writing, Obsidian remains the more adaptable choice.

Zettlr

When I first encountered Zettlr, I was struck by how clearly it had been designed with academic researchers in mind. This isn't another general-purpose note-taking app trying to serve everyone—it's an open-source markdown editor built specifically for scholarly workflows and citation-heavy work.

Zettlr key features

The academic-focused design becomes apparent immediately when you start using Zettlr. Rather than offering every possible feature, it concentrates on what researchers actually need. The application excels at citation management, providing seamless integration with reference managers like Zotero and JabRef that many academics already use for their research.

Zettlr uses a file/folder-based system where all your notes exist as markdown files directly on your computer. This approach ensures complete interoperability with other tools while preventing vendor lock-in—a consideration that becomes increasingly important as your research collection grows over years. Your files remain accessible regardless of what happens to the software itself.

The customizable interface allows you to adjust nearly every aspect of the application through settings and custom CSS. You can control how much WYSIWYG formatting you see while writing, with options to render LaTeX equations and Mermaid charts directly in the editor. This flexibility helps create a writing environment that matches your specific preferences.

For organizing complex research projects, Zettlr includes a robust snippets system for creating reusable templates alongside Zettelkasten support with note IDs, internal links, and even its own graph view for visualizing connections between concepts.

Zettlr pros and cons

Pros:

• Open-source architecture with transparent development
• Excellent citation management for academic writing
• Local file storage enhancing privacy and ownership
• Versatile export options powered by Pandoc
• Zettelkasten methodology support built-in

Cons:

• Steeper learning curve for new users
• Limited mobile support compared to alternatives
• Occasional performance issues with larger projects
• Less intuitive interface than commercial options
• Editing tables and resizing images can be cumbersome

Zettlr pricing

Zettlr best for

Zettlr serves academic writers exceptionally well, particularly those who need robust citation management integrated directly into their note-taking workflow. If you're conducting literature reviews or writing research papers where references form a central part of your work, Zettlr's comprehensive support for reference managers provides genuine value.

The application also excels for knowledge workers who want to implement Zettelkasten methodology systematically. With built-in support for note IDs, internal links, and seamless navigation between connected concepts, Zettlr makes it easier to develop sophisticated knowledge structures over time.

PhD researchers who regularly work with LaTeX equations and need specialized academic formatting will appreciate Zettlr's targeted tools. However, compared to Obsidian's extensive plugin ecosystem, Zettlr offers fewer customization options for specialized tasks. This focus can be both a strength and limitation—while it does certain things very well, you may occasionally need to switch to other programs for tasks outside its academic scope.

For researchers who value having their tools built specifically for scholarly work rather than adapted from general-purpose applications, Zettlr represents a thoughtful alternative. The fact that it's free and open-source removes financial barriers while ensuring long-term access to your research materials.

Roam Research

_{Image Source: roamresearch.com}

When Roam Research first appeared, it felt like a breakthrough moment for academic note-taking. This cloud-based application promised to mimic how our brains naturally make connections between ideas, creating webs of interconnected information that could reveal insights hidden in traditional note systems.

I remember being excited about trying Roam when I first heard about its approach to networked thought. The concept seemed perfect for the kind of complex theoretical work that PhD research demands.

Roam Research key features

Roam's bidirectional linking works differently from simple note connections—it creates automatic backlinks whenever you reference another note, building what feels like a dynamic ecosystem for your thoughts rather than static documents. Each idea becomes part of an evolving knowledge graph that grows organically.

The application uses a block-based structure where individual paragraphs function as independent units. You can reference specific blocks across different notes without duplicating content, which maintains context while ensuring important information appears wherever you need it.

Daily notes generate fresh pages each day, encouraging a workflow where you capture thoughts chronologically before organizing them into your broader knowledge system. This daily journal approach includes "streaks" to track consistency with regular updates.

Roam's graph view transforms your notes into nodes within what looks like a cosmic web of connections. As your database grows, this visualization can reveal unexpected relationships between concepts, functioning like a neural network for your ideas.

Roam Research pros and cons

Pros:

• First-class outliner supporting logical hierarchical reasoning
• Superior block references and transclusion capabilities
• Cloud-based storage accessible from anywhere
• Reliable performance with large datasets
• Extensive community extensions through Roam Depot

Cons:

• Significantly higher price point than alternatives
• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Limited offline capabilities
• Development pace has slowed since 2020
• Basic interface lacking visual refinement

Roam Research pricing

Roam Research best for

Roam works well for researchers who want to develop complex, interconnected ideas and prefer cloud accessibility over local storage. The fundamental difference between Roam and Obsidian lies in workflow philosophy—Roam encourages capturing thoughts chronologically before organizing, while Obsidian offers greater flexibility in structure without forcing cloud dependency.

However, I found that Roam presents practical limitations for PhD researchers. The cloud-only approach introduces privacy concerns when working with sensitive research materials—something I learned to prioritize during my own academic work. More significantly, the considerable subscription cost creates a real burden for academic budgets that are often already stretched thin.

During my PhD, I had to be strategic about which tools justified their cost. While Roam offers sophisticated features, the ongoing expense made it difficult to justify when Obsidian provides similar knowledge-linking capabilities without the subscription fees. For researchers who need a comprehensive environment for developing complex ideas without constantly switching between programs, the cost factor becomes a significant consideration alongside the technical capabilities.

Quick Reference: How These Applications Compare for Academic Work

After testing these applications extensively, I've organized the key differences that matter most for academic research. This comparison focuses on the practical aspects that determine whether an application will support or hinder your research workflow.

The most important column here is "Program Switching Need"—this reflects how often you'll need to leave the application to complete your academic work. Applications requiring high program switching interrupt your thinking process precisely when focus matters most.

For academic research, the linking capabilities and local storage options prove most critical. Applications with basic linking force you to remember connections between ideas, while advanced linking systems like Obsidian's reveal relationships you might otherwise miss.

The pricing comparison shows an interesting pattern: the most powerful free options (Obsidian, Logseq, Zettlr) are often better suited for academic work than expensive cloud-based alternatives. This matters when you're working within typical academic budgets but need professional-level capabilities.

Notice how applications designed specifically for academic work (Obsidian, Zettlr) score better on reducing program switching than general-purpose tools adapted for research use. This reflects the importance of choosing tools built for your specific workflow rather than trying to adapt generic solutions.

After working through these different note-taking applications, I hope you can see why I eventually settled on Obsidian for my academic work. Each tool we've examined offers something valuable, but the question isn't really which application has the most features—it's which one will actually support your thinking process without getting in the way.

When I started this journey, I was drowning in scattered notes across multiple applications. I tried nearly every solution available, convinced that the next tool would finally solve my organizational problems. What I discovered through this trial-and-error process is that most traditional note-taking applications treat your thoughts as isolated documents rather than parts of an interconnected knowledge system.

Traditional solutions like OneNote and Apple Notes work well for basic note capture, but they leave you constantly switching between different programs when you need to develop complex ideas. This fragmentation becomes particularly problematic during intensive research phases, where maintaining focus is crucial for deep thinking.

Obsidian changed how I approach academic work because it addresses the fundamental problem I was experiencing—it creates a unified environment where notes, writing, and knowledge development happen together. Instead of jumping between reference managers, writing tools, and project trackers, everything lives in one interconnected system. This eliminates the cognitive interruption that comes with context-switching, allowing you to maintain momentum during research.

What impressed me most about Obsidian isn't any single feature, but how it transforms scattered information into a knowledge network that grows alongside your understanding. Whether you're conducting literature reviews, developing theoretical frameworks, or maintaining research journals, your work becomes part of an evolving system rather than isolated tasks.

I should mention that Obsidian's free personal use model removes the financial barriers that often prevent academics from accessing powerful tools—a significant advantage over subscription-based alternatives.

Of course, the best note-taking application depends on your specific research needs and working style. Some researchers may prefer the structured approach of applications like Logseq or the collaborative features of Notion. What matters most is finding a system that supports rather than hinders your thinking process.

For PhD researchers who value privacy, need extensive customization, and want to develop sophisticated knowledge structures without program-switching, I believe Obsidian offers the most comprehensive solution. The initial learning curve requires effort, but this investment pays dividends through enhanced productivity and deeper insights—benefits that multiply as your knowledge base grows throughout your academic journey.

My advice is to consider what frustrated you most about your current note-taking approach. If you're experiencing the same scattered, fragmented workflow that I struggled with, Obsidian may offer the solution you've been seeking. The key is giving yourself permission to invest time in learning a system that will actually support your academic thinking rather than complicate it.