Add some pro/con in Obsidian vs Tiddlywiki compare site?

I found some pro of Obsidian can be copy to TiddlyWiki side.

You need to open a question in " Ranked in these Questions" section, and vote up tiddlywiki to input the pro and con.

Man, comparisons between TiddlyWiki and anything else makes zero sense to me.

TiddlyWiki is something with which one can build something that looks like and works like Obsidian.

So it would make sense to compare the thing created with TiddlyWiki to Obsidian.

For somebody who needs a product like Obsidian, TiddlyWiki makes zero sense. There is no comparison.

For somebody who needs TiddlyWiki as-is (for creation of a personalised solution), Obsidian makes zero sense. There is no comparison.

Obsidian is an “off the shelf” solution that does what it does. TiddlyWiki as-is is an off the shelf solution that does what it does.

Comparing Obsidian and TiddlyWiki is a little bit like comparing a loaf of bread to a bag of flour.

There is nothing I know of that compares to TiddlyWiki.

Obsidian, there are all kinds of alternatives. Ones I think of off the top of my head from the Linux and web worlds: FeatherWiki (!!!), MDwiki, ZIM Wiki, Notion, KeepNote, CherryTree, Tomboy, GNote …


Both products are software solutions in the PKM sphere, so there’s plenty of room for comparison. Out of the box, Obsidian is a super note-taking system, solving the long-standing problem in TW of image management. Although the software is proprietary, the data structure is less proprietary than TW. TW uses it’s own wikitext, which isn’t supported by anything else. Obsidian uses straight-up markdown, with a smidgeon of YAML for fields and tagging.

This is what I see for the question “What is the best single-user wiki?” I don’t understand what the icon is supposed to mean.


I see a con posted for TW that makes no sense:

Without JavaScript nothing is visible
You need a browser that is not outdated to open the wiki,

Huh? I can only conclude that the user is attempting to use a browser without JS, which will probably break 90% of websites out there. And why would you linger with an old, dangerous browser when browsers are free?

  • I think proprietary (for tiddlywiki data structure) is the wrong word here, as its open source. With with tiddlywiki you could use just straight-up markdown, but that would be limiting yourself.
    • Arguably Obsidian provides a subset of what tiddlywiki can do, TiddlyWiki can do obsidian, obsidian can’t do tiddlywiki.

To me tiddlywiki is modelling clay, with which you can make models, obsidian and others are typically models that “have set” (although with a lot of flexibility).

  • It all depends on the users needs, emphasis and maturity in “personal organisation”.
  • So ultimately I think comparison is of little value, except to flag there are alternative decision paths. The old comparing Apples and Oranges, chalk and cheese.

I never understood that expression. You can definitely compare apples and oranges, especially these days when so many medicines warn you to not take them with citrus juice.

That’s true, It would be better to compare TidGi app, TiddlyDesktop, Tiddloid to Obsidian.

Anyway, writing comparison on that site will help people get to use tiddlywiki based product. One of members in QQ group ask for a comparison article, and search for internet and find this site.

1 Like

You can modify the text in that Con. I’ve updated many on that.

1 Like

I don’t really agree with these points. Obsidian is also extremely extensible, with a well-documented API, many community plugins, codemirror 6 as the editor, which is also very extensible and has lots of plugins.

Given all that, I’m planning on trialling it for a subset of my notes, mainly to compare how performant it is and how easy I find it to adjust the UI to my needs. Things that I like about obsidian that lead me to considering it as an alternative:

  • First class markdown support which makes it easier to export my notes to a static site generator
    • Markdown also has a lot more support in other tools whether it be text editors, or formats like mdx that markdown with components (although it is more annoying parse, at least other people have done the hard work of writing parsers for most editors/languages out there)
  • Codemirror 6 by default, which has support for mobile browsers the CM5 lacks (although it has been on my to do list for a while to integrate CM6 into TW)
  • I’ve found more tutorials that I can grasp (maybe it just feels more similar to stuff that I’ve worked with before)

All that being said, I don’t like that it’s closed source (so in the end your plugins are limited by the accessible API), and I like the TW community more, so the other thing I want to be working on is integrating CM6, improving the performance of my wiki, and trying to get a good process going for converting from wikitext to markdown for the sake of hosting some of my wiki content online.


Since you are calling me out, I might as well clarify my position that you don’t agree with.

When I compare side-by-side Obsidian and TiddlyWiki, Obsidian is to me way more “off the shelf” in the sense that it is immediately polished with a friendly interface that lets a non-technical person (or a technical person) quickly get about doing second-brain (or whatever) stuff without any futzing about.

edit: i.e. Obsidian is ready-to-go (pretty and functional) as-is

I have no idea what you don’t agree with there.

Very useful observations IMHO.

One observe. Obsidian is pretty much “out-of-the-box”.

Is TW ever “out-of-the-box”? (Meaning is Mother,, the best basis for comparison for it’s funky-flex?)

Just asking for a friend.

That is why the new website is recommending TiddlyDesktop and Tiddlyhost, so it is basically work out-of-the-box.

But I will recommend TidGi and make a website for it in the next year, because it pre-bundle lots of plugin that make it works like miro + notion + Obsidian + Tara, be an overkill, but still remains the simplicity like flomo and Evernote or Bear note. (via Layout and layout launcher)

IMO, tiddlywiki is like Linux kernal or Android, and TidGi is like Ubuntu or MIUI (or other modified Android OS). And you can make other edition use opensource bricks from Ubuntu plus Linux kernal to make your edition.

I haven’t release TidGi in the public because I think the plugin is still not enough, I still need some time to make more layout related plugins, they are the key to simplicity.


We should add these thought to comparsion website, so new users gets this.

1 Like

Sorry it wasn’t my intention to call you out. I was only trying to add my own views as someone who uses TiddlyWiki and is considering using Obsidian for the same use case.

That use case is managing a certain type of knowledge, and customising the experience of managing it so the process is smooth, enjoyable and makes sense to me.

From my perspective both would be able to accomplish this, so it makes sense to compare them. Both work a certain way out of the box, both have additional community plugins/contributions that adapt the experience and both have a way of customising the experience to suit your own needs.

Using “calling me out” was me grasping for the right concise words without twisting myself into a cognitive pretzel…

To me, somebody mentioning me and quoting me and kind of misrepresenting what thoughts I may have had challenges expressing into words, that makes me a little bit uncomfortable and I can’t help but jump in again.

I tend to think the best way one can express one’s view is to express your view so that it stands on its own without getting into an intertwingled (interconnected / intertwined) bleurk. (Don’t mind me: I like a picture of information to not have any distracting connections, kind of like that kid that does not like the mashed potatoes touching the peas…)


I’m kind of doing something similar to what you are doing: Notion instead of TiddlyWiki.

For non-technical folk (especially those who don’t like computers), Notion is much more comfortable than TiddlyWiki in regards to immediately starting to write and organise information.

Back to the comparison thing:

To me, comparing TiddlyWiki to “product X” is like comparing a specific brand of steak knife to another brand’s butter knife, or comparing a specific brand of tent to a specific RV, or comparing a Mitsubishi Mirage to a Mercedes-Benz G-Class.

Obsidian and Notion, to me, are in a category of hierarchical note-taking tools.

A paper pad is also a note-taking tool, but that’s a pretty different category.

Spreadsheet software could be used as a note-taking tool. But that’s a pretty different category of product.

TiddlyWiki can be used as a note-taking tool. But it is a pretty different category of product. I see it as so unique, that nothing else can fall into that category. It can map intertwingled thought like nothing else that I know of.

Comparing the category that TiddlyWiki belongs to and the category Obsidian and Notion belong in, that could make sense to me. Comparing TiddlyWiki to Obsidian specifically, to me, is like comparing Google Sheets specifically to Obsidian. Feels weird to me.


I’ve added a half-dozen pro’s. I’m thinking of adding another one, but want to verify that I’m correct:

Create titles and fields using all available character sets

But … is this true? Or am I over-stating the case?

Maybe I’m not understanding how the slant site works, but it appears that you have to enter a “pro” under each question that applies to TW. i.e., you may need to repeat the same “pro” several times if you want it to have full visibility. This seems counter-intuitive, since a “pro” that applies to one question should be equally valid for any other question.

Latest features, bro.

The change list is very long on each release, I just happened to know it.

No, it has delay. And what you entered must be randomly agree by others to get changes applied. So I’m asking others to do changes on this site.

It would be awesome if it were possible to setup a script to convert a folder of markdown files (in Obsidian or otherwise) into a self-contained TiddlyWiki to host and/or share. Thoughts?

1 Like

I suspect this is mostly true, some characters would be best not used even if they can be. I think on a comparison site it may be worth mentioning the extras relative to the others. Perhaps “use Unicode and other character sets” (leaving out the “all”)

  • Then let me ask you,
    • could you make obsidian do what TiddlyWiki does?
    • because you can make TiddlyWiki do what obsidian does (that is my understanding)

Obsidian could just be an edition of TiddlyWiki, but not the other way around.

Regardless I am a big believer in a making use of a diverse set of tools and ensuring data transfer between tools.

  • However I have decided that TiddlyWikis customisability and extendibility is so great, I have committed to it as an ecosystem and time invested there is time invested in its futures as well.
  • Obsidian and other tools have their value, but I have no need to test their limits because TiddlyWiki has very few limits.