Logseq and Obsidian.md Colaboration Projects

Great idea. An goal that can easily be achieved in the near future is the above: specifically, to be able to open a Logseq markdown file in Obisidan, and being able to make limited edits in Obsidian within the Logseq-generated structure, and being able to open it back in Logseq. Things that are blocking it today:

  • Logseq uses headings (#), instead of bullets (-)
  • Logseq doesn’t “cleanly” separate directory structure from config
    • this might just amount to renaming the config directory to “.logseq”
    • can Obsidian be told to ignore the .logseq directory?
  • How does Obsidian handle block metadata generated by Logseq?
  • How does Obsidian handle frontmatter generated by Logseq?

Unordered list “-“ style bullets are coming soon in logseq…

Obsidian doesn’t auto generate front matter or any sort of page content, so theres no conflicts in that regard…

Once we get normal markdown list bullets, they will be much more compatible…


Great Idea! But what I would put in the first priority is a mobile app. For both. Obsidian mobile is already in beta as I’ve heard.


I agree, I still think this collaboration project would be amazing, but yeah a Logseq mobile app that works with a built-in paid syncing option or with something like Dropbox would be amazing!


I think unordered lists as bullets will be a good start in adding support for Obsidian. Can this feature be added an option in Logseq?

1 Like

ideally as a toggle, where the user gets to decide when to make it into headings vs when to make it an unordered list. I think this would really make obsidian / logseq collaboration a lot smoother.

1 Like

I think, it’s now finally possible to achieve a perfect workflow between Logseq and Obsidian.

I wrote about it in Discord, in this message

This is What I said to @tienson and the @moderators… You have to check this out, if you haven’t already…
this is an Obsidian plugin that allows to use some basic outliner functionality.

With the new Logseq refactoring bullet points for markdow, the combination of Obsidian + Logseq is really close to perfect.

I know a lot of people use Obsidian + Logseq.

I’m not sure how much would be on Logseq’s part to make sure that Obsidian community plugin and Logseq work better together.

But definitely try to reach out the creator of that plugin, to help create an amazing workflow between Logseq and Obsidian.

1 Like

As soon as plugins, themes, etc. became a part of Logseq, I have been thinking wouldn’t it be nice to just drag n drop an Obsidian.md. theme and use it in Logseq. I know this is not how things work and it’s not that easy. But wouldn’t it be nice.


It’s an interesting idea. I don’t think it will be possible. However my way to contribute to something similar has been to recreate my Obsidian Theme to a Logseq Theme

On the Left my Logseq Theme Cobra

On the right my Obsidian Theme Wasp


TLDR: Bumping this with the latest state of using Logseq and Obsdian together. I love using both Logseq and Obsidian, but I’m outlining my current gripes that prevent me from being fully happy with the experience. I put these examples together to open source solutions for these issues. Would love to hear how other people integrate the two successfully or if I’m an outlier.

I use Logseq as an outliner and Obsidian to write content. The outlining experience is phenomenal, but the writing experience is frustrating. I’ve followed everything in the Making Obsidian play nice with Logseq guide, but the experience is still not great.

The format that Logseq generates is mostly compatible with Obsidian. Since the beta release, Logseq uses “standard - unordered list as outliner bullets”. This was a nice compatibility enhancement, but I still have some major gripes.


(These examples are snippets from my personal notes. I write meeting notes, notes on dog training techniques, and catalog recipes and meals that I have. Please ignore the content if you can help it :slight_smile: )

Block references are not compatible.


Block references written in Logseq rendered in obsidian:
Block references written in Obsidian and rendered in Logseq:

I don’t know if this is something that will ever be compatible just because of how different Logseq and Obsidian implement their Block references; Logseq uses a UUID attached to a Block Property to identify a block, and obsidian uses a more standard [^uniquehash] markdown footnote-style reference.

Logseq Block Properties do not prettily render in Obsidian


Written in Logseq and rendered in Obsidian:
Written and rendered in Logseq:

I like the way Logseq renders properties. If this were a standard feature of markdown, I’d say Obsidian should implement hiding or rendering these properties.

Slashes in page names do not create a page in a folder within Logseq



Logseq replaces the slash with a period. No idea why. This means I create multiple pages and my logseq and obsidian notes diverge. I think Logseq needs to switch their implementation here.

I put these examples together to open source solutions for these issues. Would love to hear how other people integrate the two successfully or if I’m an outlier.


Hi thank you for making this post! I recently also tried to make these two working together but failed : (. I think right now the most difficult thing is the block reference (which I unfortunately used a lot) since these are two totally different implementation

1 Like

Yes, the as-yet untranslatability of block references is indeed a major pain point. I have decided for the moment to keep block references for Logseq use only, as Obsidian block references makes considerable chaos in Logseq by creating meaningless pages.

It is possible, however, to navigate Logseq block references in Obsidian without too much difficulty. For example, one can simply search for the reference ID. Not ideal but it works well. I’m also aware of a script for Obsidian that makes that process even easier (created by a user of Obsidian). Hopefully I’ll be able to share it soon.


Would love to know the script!

Someone made a plugin for Obsidian compatibility with Logseq

Unfortunately the development stopped and it wasn’t merged into Obsidian community plugins


I found this too, but couldn’t find any reviews from others using it. I want to be sure there aren’t any vulnerabilities, etc (tried contacting author, but not response)

Can someone check the code?

I see a lot of feature requests for Logseq to emulate some Obsidian feature. I get that these products are similar, but they are also different. I like that Obsidian appears to be built atop a plugin architecture where everything, even the core, is a plugin. I like that because it means I can opt out of a lot of cruft I don’t want (e.g. Zotero) but which is integrated into Logseq by default.

Other than that, I don’t like the idea of Logseq becoming more like Obsidian. I like the Logseq user experience better than Obsidian, at this point. So the notion of Logseq doing Obsidian is lost on me.

Now if the Obsidian must-haves are nothing more than plugins, that’s great because that doesn’t impose one person’s view (Obsidian does X better) on the whole community. And if Logseq makes plugins a centerpiece to its design then lots of Obsidian-like things can be supported via plugins.

As far as collaboration goes, I am sure Obsidian and Logseq are cross pollinating but I see no way around having to rewrite features/plugins for both. Basically, all this request amounts to is configurability. Let users choose what things to configure to be more like Obsidian and, with plugins, that’s possible.


Here there is a proposal for a committee or something like that to standardize the syntax of PKMS i.e. extensions to Markdown format:


Logsidian or Obseq? :slight_smile:

If LogSeq will start using subfolders for namespaces it would be a great Obsidian companion!

I wonder if Logseq could switch to a more common and user-friendly format for callouts, aka admonitions.

Obsidian has chosen to follow the syntax created by Microsoft. Github (owned by Microsoft lol) has gone somewhat different.
But all use a modified Blockquote, which I believe was chosen so that it renders decently in markdown processors that don’t understand callouts.

It would be great of Logseq moved away from the org-mode style #+BEGIN (which I’ve always found difficult to remember and type in my org-mode days, even before the better ``` syntax was invented)


I totally agree with you, there is no point in adapting to a universal standard format and creating a dialect-like barrier at the same time.

1 Like