Skip to content

Comparisons

Ichi vs Obsidian

Ichi and Obsidian both keep Markdown local, but they surround those files with very different workflows. Compare their reading and editing models, knowledge tools, extensibility, privacy, sync and pricing.

Robert Clarke

Independent developer of Ichi

Published

The Ichi-versus-Obsidian question is easy to misframe. It is not "simple versus complicated," and it is not "plain folders versus proprietary vaults" — Obsidian keeps your notes as ordinary local Markdown too. The useful question is closer to: do you want Markdown itself to be the workspace, or do you want a knowledge workspace built around Markdown? Obsidian also works perfectly well as a straightforward Markdown editor, and its own documentation notes that viewing, editing and searching files can be enough for a minimalist — so the difference is about how much product you choose to surround your files with, not whether your files are yours.

Disclosure: I build Ichi, so I have a point of view. This comparison uses the same criteria for both and calls out where Obsidian is the better fit.

Overall product model

Ichi is deliberately narrow. Its core structure is three views — Read, Edit (direct Markdown source) and Split — and its job is to make reading and editing local Markdown calm and uncluttered. There is no plugin system, no knowledge graph and no account.

Obsidian is a much broader local-first Markdown workspace. At its centre is a local vault of Markdown files, but around that it offers links, backlinks, a graph, properties, canvas, Bases, core and community plugins, themes, and optional paid services (Sync and Publish). Obsidian also works perfectly well as a straightforward Markdown editor, but its available surface is far larger than Ichi's by design. The key point is available surface area versus the surface you actually choose to enable: a minimalist can use Obsidian as basically a file viewer/editor/searcher, while someone else can build a large knowledge system in the same app.

Both keep your Markdown files local and portable. The difference is how much product surrounds those files.

Reading experience

Ichi gives reading its own dedicated rendered view. Read view (Ctrl+1) typesets the document and hides editing controls, and Ichi preserves your document position when you move between Read, Edit and Split.

Obsidian has a dedicated Reading view as a separate mode, and an Editing view with two editing modes — Live Preview (rendered editing with Markdown visible contextually) and Source mode (raw Markdown). Obsidian can also show the same note in Reading and Editing view side-by-side by Ctrl/Cmd-clicking the view switcher. I am not asserting that switching Obsidian's Reading and Editing views preserves your exact scroll position — only Ichi's position preservation is verified — so I leave that comparison open rather than claim it.

Editing experience

Ichi's Edit view works directly in the Markdown source, and Split keeps source and rendered output side by side. Ichi does not turn that source surface into an in-place live-preview surface.

Obsidian lets you edit in Live Preview or Source mode, and switch to Reading view for a fully rendered result. Both support capable Markdown editing, but the interaction models are different.

Read/Edit/Split versus Reading/Live Preview/Source

This is the core structural difference, but it is not "Ichi has Split and Obsidian does not."

Ichi makes source Edit, rendered Read and Split three explicit core product views, and it keeps your scroll/position when you move between them. Obsidian separates Reading and Editing, offers Live Preview or Source within Editing, and can display Reading and Editing side-by-side. Both let you read and write Markdown without leaving the file local; they organise the reading/editing experience differently, and only Ichi's cross-view position preservation is verified.

Local files: folders versus vaults

Both use ordinary local Markdown files as the source of truth.

An Obsidian vault is a folder on the local filesystem containing local files and subfolders; Obsidian can open an existing folder as a vault. The ".obsidian" directory stores vault-specific configuration such as hotkeys, themes and community plugins. That does not change ownership or portability of your Markdown documents — the ".md" files remain yours, openable in any editor, and you can move a vault by moving its folder. Ichi edits the existing Markdown files in place and does not replace them with a proprietary format either.

Neither requires a vendor workspace to open or edit your files.

Navigation and search

Obsidian provides a file explorer, search, a Quick switcher, backlinks, internal links, properties and a graph across the vault.

Ichi provides a project file tree, Quick Open, project-wide search and in-document find/replace.

The distinction is not "one has navigation and the other does not" — both let you move through a folder of Markdown. The distinction is that Obsidian adds knowledge-management navigation (backlinks, graph, properties, Quick switcher) on top of ordinary file navigation, while Ichi stays at the file/project level.

Links, backlinks and knowledge tools

This is where the products diverge most. Obsidian offers internal links, backlinks, a Graph view, Properties (stored as YAML frontmatter in your Markdown notes), Canvas (stored as ".canvas" files in the open JSON Canvas format — not Markdown, but also not proprietary lock-in), and Bases for structured views of note properties. Ichi has none of that; it is a reader/editor, not a knowledge graph.

If you want linking, backlinks, a graph and structured knowledge tools, Obsidian is built for it. If you want to read and edit Markdown without a knowledge-management layer, Ichi stays out of your way. Note that not every Obsidian workspace artefact is Markdown — Properties live in frontmatter and Canvas uses the open JSON Canvas format — but your document content remains portable local Markdown either way.

Markdown support

Obsidian renders and edits standard Markdown with a large feature set and broad ecosystem support, and can display rendered content in Live Preview or Reading view.

Ichi supports GitHub Flavoured Markdown including front matter, tables, task lists, fenced code, local images and sanitised structural HTML, rendered for calm reading.

Both handle everyday Markdown; Obsidian's rendering is woven into its broader editing and linking model, while Ichi's stays focused on reading and editing.

Plugins and extensibility

Obsidian's extensibility is one of its defining strengths: built-in core plugins, a large third-party community plugin ecosystem, community themes and CSS snippets. That same extensibility is also where product complexity can grow — plugins, settings and metadata can add significantly more surface if you choose to use them. But Obsidian's own documentation is clear that you do not have to use any of it; viewing, editing and searching files can be enough.

Ichi has no plugin ecosystem and a deliberately limited feature surface. That is a trade-off, not a superiority — Ichi is narrower by design, and Obsidian is broader by design.

Themes/customisation

Obsidian has a large community theme ecosystem plus custom CSS and CSS snippets, and core/community plugins that extend behaviour.

Ichi has built-in appearance settings, including theme, but no theme marketplace or plugin system.

Account, sync and privacy

Neither requires an account for ordinary local use. Ichi has no built-in sync; Obsidian can use third-party sync methods and also offers its own optional paid Obsidian Sync service.

Obsidian additionally offers optional paid services. Obsidian Sync requires an Obsidian account and subscription, and provides end-to-end encrypted sync with version history and shared vaults; Obsidian Publish publishes notes to the web. These are separate network services; your local files remain local Markdown whether or not you use them. Local use of Obsidian is free for all purposes, with no sign-up required, and commercial use does not require payment (the Commercial licence is optional support).

Ichi has no account, no built-in sync, and no paid services.

Keeping the layers separate:

  • Core application: Obsidian's desktop and mobile apps store data locally, do not send local app data to Obsidian servers, collect no personal data and no telemetry; an update check can be disabled. Ichi sends no telemetry and performs no app-level background update checks. — https://obsidian.md/privacy
  • Network services: Obsidian Sync and Publish use Obsidian services (Sync is end-to-end encrypted). Ichi has no such services. — https://obsidian.md/sync
  • Plugins and embedded content: Obsidian connects to the internet when you browse or install plugins and themes or load embedded web content. Third-party community plugins are not the same thing as the core app, so their behaviour should not be collapsed into a single "Obsidian" privacy claim. — https://obsidian.md/privacy

Platforms and price

Obsidian runs on Windows, macOS, Linux and mobile — a mature, cross-platform product with a large ecosystem. Local use is free for all purposes; optional paid services are Sync, Publish, a $25 one-time Catalyst licence, and a $50/user/year commercial licence (optional, not required for commercial use).

Ichi is currently a Public Beta and Windows x64 only. Ichi is free while in Public Beta.

Maturity

Obsidian is a mature product with a broad ecosystem, years of releases and a large community. Ichi is substantially newer (Public Beta) with a smaller feature and theme ecosystem. If breadth and maturity matter most, Obsidian leads; if you want a calm, narrow, telemetry-free local tool and can accept beta status, Ichi is the deliberate alternative.

Which one fits you

Choose Ichi if you want a calm, narrow Windows Markdown reader/editor with dedicated Read/Edit/Split, document position preserved across views, ordinary local files, no account, no telemetry and no background update checks, and you are comfortable with Public Beta and Windows x64 only.

Choose Obsidian if you want a mature, cross-platform local-first Markdown workspace with links, backlinks, graph, properties, canvas, Bases, plugins and themes, plus optional Sync and Publish — and you are happy with a broader product surface (which you can keep minimal or expand as you like).

Either works if you mainly want ordinary local Markdown files you own and no account for local use. Both can work with your chosen storage or third-party sync; Obsidian additionally offers its own paid Sync service. Obsidian also works as a plain Markdown editor if you ignore the knowledge features.

I build Ichi, so treat the Ichi-favouring framing as my bias and weigh Obsidian's strengths on their own terms.

Surface modelReading / editing workflowLocal files / workspace modelSearch / navigationKnowledge / extensibilityAccount / syncPrivacy / networkPlatforms / price
IchiDedicated Read / Edit (source) / Split viewsReading is its own view; document position preserved across viewsOrdinary local folders; project tree, Quick Open, project-wide search, in-doc find/replaceProject tree, Quick Open, project-wide + in-document searchNo backlinks, graph, Bases or plugin systemNo account; no built-in syncNo app telemetry; no app-level background update checksWindows x64; free Public Beta
ObsidianVault app: Reading view, Editing view (Live Preview or Source), side-by-side Reading+EditingReading view (separate); side-by-side Reading+Editing possible; position preservation not assertedLocal .md vault (a folder); .obsidian = app config, not the docsFile explorer, search, Quick switcher, backlinks, internal links, graph, propertiesBacklinks, internal links, graph, properties, canvas, Bases, core + community plugins, themes, CSS snippetsNo account for local use; optional Sync (account+subscription) / PublishCore app: local data, no telemetry; update check can be disabled; plugins/services separateWindows/macOS/Linux/mobile; local free; Sync/Publish paid

Sources

Primary product documentation:

Comparisons

Ichi vs Typora

Ichi and Typora both keep Markdown as ordinary local files, but they approach reading and editing very differently. Compare their workflows, focus tools, privacy, platforms and pricing.

By Robert Clarke

Choosing Markdown

Markdown vs Word: which should you write in?

Plain Markdown and Microsoft Word both produce documents, but they make different trade-offs around portability, focus, version control and collaboration. Here is how to choose.

By Robert Clarke

Choosing Markdown

The Best Distraction-Free Markdown Editors for Windows

Distraction-free isn't one switch. A look at Windows Markdown editors by what they actually do to keep your attention on the page — from a small product surface to dedicated focus modes.

By Robert Clarke