Exempelresultat
Skapat 27 oktober 2026
| Criterion | Wiki-style app | Local-files app | Notebook-style app |
|---|---|---|---|
| Real-time team collaboration | 5/5 — shared pages, comments, mentions, permissions | 2/5 — possible via sync/Git, but conflict-prone | 4/5 — strong sharing and co-editing, usually less structured |
| Knowledge structure & discoverability | 5/5 — links, databases, tags, search, backlinks | 4/5 — flexible folders, links, and metadata; setup-dependent | 3/5 — intuitive notebooks, but information can become siloed |
| Offline access & resilience | 2/5 — often cloud-first with limited offline support | 5/5 — files remain available and usable locally | 4/5 — typically good offline support with later sync |
| Data ownership & portability | 3/5 — export exists, but structure may not transfer cleanly | 5/5 — open files, easy backup, migration, and version control | 3/5 — exports vary; attachments and formatting may be awkward |
| Citation and research workflow | 3/5 — customizable, but often needs integrations/templates | 5/5 — works well with Markdown, BibTeX, scripts, and reference managers | 4/5 — good capture and annotation; weaker for reproducible workflows |
| Security & access control | 5/5 — granular workspace, page, and guest permissions | 3/5 — strong ownership, but team access control requires infrastructure | 4/5 — mature account controls; granularity varies |
| Scalability and maintenance | 4/5 — scales well if governance and naming rules are enforced | 3/5 — technically durable, but conventions and sync need maintenance | 3/5 — easy initially; large collections often become hard to navigate |
| Onboarding & daily usability | 4/5 — approachable, though advanced systems require training | 2/5 — highest learning curve, especially with Git or plugins | 5/5 — fastest for familiar note capture and organization |
| Total | 31/40 | 29/40 | 30/40 |
Verdicts
- **C