Zettelkasten is one of those terms people toss at you once you start dabbling in serious note-taking or research work. It literally means “slip box” in German, and at its core, it’s just a system for breaking down ideas into individual, linkable notes. But it’s also a productivity trap if you don’t set up your tools correctly. It took me three restarts before I got Logseq and Roam Research to actually feel like a Zettelkasten, not just fancy folders of chaos.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
The essence of Zettelkasten is to create atomic notes—just means small, focused ideas. It’s not a place to dump an entire article. Think: one note = one idea. Then you weave connections between them. What you’re doing is building your own knowledge map, like your brain’s second brain—except searchable and way less foggy. Old-school Zettelkasten used index cards. We now simulate the same thing with backlinks and unique IDs.
This is not outliner-first or folder-based. If you’re coming from Evernote or Notion, where context is hierarchical, Zettelkasten flips it. It’s closer to a personal wiki where ideas grow network-style, not parent-child.
So, when people ask, “Why not just tag stuff?”—you can, but Zettelkasten works because the link is the organization. A note links to another, and that relationship forms your structure. The goal isn’t to find something, it’s to discover something adjacent and useful.
In short: Zettelkasten is about writing notes as standalone thoughts and connecting them intentionally with other notes to build up insights over time.
How Logseq Handles Zettelkasten Linking Logic
Logseq is an outliner, yes, but it doesn’t feel like one when you’re using it for Zettelkasten. The biggest strength for this method is the flexible linking and block references. You can link pages, but more crucially, you can link specific bullet points inside those pages. That’s your atomic-level control.
Here’s what worked for me: I create a new page for each thought. For example, “Design needs constraints” is its own page. Then I can link it inside other ideas like “Creativity under deadlines” using [[Design needs constraints]]. But I prefer using block references ((())) when the note is more nuanced or part of a broader daily log.
The daily journal page sounds like a throwaway idea, but it’s weirdly powerful. It’s where I record sparks and sketches without having to label them yet. Later, I refactor. That’s the Zettelkasten part—go back in, find the gold nugget, extract it out into a permanent note with a title. Then, link it back into the daily context if needed.
Actual workflow tip: turn on custom namespaces. You can have thoughts/creativity/how-to-start and still link it globally. Helps prevent naming collisions like me having five notes called “resistance.”
Search inside Logseq is fast, but not forgiving. You need to name consistently or you’ll lose half your notes. I’ve added smart templates with an “ID” field (just a timestamp prefix), so each note is technically unique even if titles duplicate.
In short: Logseq lets you link bullet points and entire pages easily, but it’ll only work if you revisit and curate your notes regularly—Zettelkasten doesn’t organize itself.
How Roam Research Evolves Relationships Between Ideas
Roam’s not structured the same, and that’s good if your brain thinks graph-first. The game-changer is unlinked mentions. You write something and Roam tells you, “Psst, you’ve said that exact phrase before.” It’s like autocomplete for your second brain.
I’ve found Roam encourages serendipity more than Logseq. I was rewriting a note around “default creative energy levels” (I know, vague), and Roam surfaced an old note I’d totally forgotten about—a discussion about afternoon slumps and caffeine. They weren’t on the same page, but suddenly the connection made the larger topic click into place for an essay.
The page and block referencing is similar to Logseq, but it leans more on pages. Pages can be giant or tiny—doesn’t care. Zettelkasten here becomes an emergent behavior. As long as you create links and write atomic notes, your graph grows automatically. Don’t overthink structure in Roam. That’s the whole selling point.
That said, block embeds can get messy fast. Once I embedded a block from a transient daily log into eight different notes. Then I edited that block thinking it was just a quick change—didn’t realize I was rewriting eight different contexts at once 😖. Tip: use block references for reuse, but be cautious about editing shared ones.
If you’re a hyperlink-driven person, Roam’s back-reference feature helps you rediscover things with less manual tagging. But you must use brackets. This is optional in Logseq, which means your link density may end up diluted over time unless you’re meticulous.
In short: Roam lets ideas grow organically through networked links, but that same flexibility means it needs active mental attention to what’s being reshaped through references.
Where Structure Breaks Down in Both Tools
Here’s what tripped me up in both systems—and why I don’t recommend blindly porting from analog Zettelkasten into either of these without adaptation.
Link hoarding: In Logseq, I got too deep into creating every note with links to five other things. It bloated quickly. I’d open a note and see more backlinks than original content. Now I avoid linking until the second pass—during refactor, not capture.
Page or block? Roam doesn’t tell you when you’re overusing blocks instead of making proper pages. Your notes end up buried inside daily logs, never to resurface. If it’s an idea you’ll want later, give it a page early.
Note duplication: In both tools, using titles like “motivation” or “focus” without context turns your graph into soup. I had to rebuild my Zettelkasten map twice because of overly generic naming conventions.
When I started applying timestamps (like 20231013-focus-vs-attention), the system got cleaner. Not pretty, but functional—which is more important.
In short: Zettelkasten’s strength is in relationships, but too many links or unclear identifiers make everything harder—not easier—to navigate.
Situations Where Logseq Outsmarts Roam
I lean toward Logseq when offline access matters or I want Git-level backup control. The local-first model sounds boring until you lose data (which I did once in Roam due to sync conflict 😑). With Logseq, every note’s just a text file. No exports needed, no vendor lock-in.
Another subtle win? Tasks. Logseq lets you mix to-dos inside your Zettelkasten. I use it for action-item surfacing—like when I research a concept and want to follow up with a task. In Roam, you can mimic this, but there’s no native task view.
Performance-wise, Roam slows down with heavy graphs. I crossed ten thousand pages, and Roam loading times felt painful compared to Logseq’s almost instant load. Memory usage jumps significantly in Roam under large datasets, especially on the web version.
Plugin ecosystem? Logseq wins again—timer widgets, habit tracking, even fun stuff like spaced repetition cards. Just install it, restart, done.
In short: if you want offline-first, speed, and tasks baked in, Logseq does Zettelkasten with less friction.
When Roam Feels Like the Better Fit
The Roam graph view isn’t eye candy—it’s functional. I used it to trace cognitive themes over months. Like, I saw “friction,” “habit drift,” and “discipline” start clustering. It wasn’t planned, they just emerged. That’s networked thinking in action.
If you’re doing research-heavy writing—blogs, white-papers, academic work—Roam feels smoother. You can dump citations into a page, then link insights as they show up. The page-level referencing helps keep it coherent.
Roam’s sidebar is a superpower. Keep a working draft on the right, reference back and forth without switching contexts. Logseq has this, but Roam’s implementation feels faster and less fussy. I often rough out a blog post using linked notes on one side, outline structure on the other.
The collaborative model? Real-time, multi-caret editing. I used Roam to do a joint Zettelkasten session with a writing partner. Felt almost like Google Docs + concept map hybrid. Logseq doesn’t offer that level of sync yet without hacks.
In short: Roam feels smoother when you’re synthesizing in real time or working collaboratively—especially when you want surprising connections to bubble up naturally.
Deciding Between Them for Long-Term Use
If you’re early into Zettelkasten and unsure about your workflow, you might want to test both on small projects. Set a weekly research topic. Use Roam one week, Logseq the next. See which one nudges you back naturally.
Feature
Logseq
Roam
Offline support
Full
Partial (web-first)
Backlink handling
Precise (blocks)
Organic (auto-suggest)
Plugin flexibility
Wide, active community
Minimal
Collaboration
Basic (manual sync)
Live
Roam is better at surfacing unexpected links. Logseq makes you deliberately build them. Depends on whether you want your system to surprise you, or stay under control.
In short: Roam feels like a chaotic genius lab, while Logseq is like a carefully tended workshop. There’s no one tool—there’s just how much chaos you’re willing to tolerate when navigating your own thoughts.
