Snoq vs Joplin

Joplin is one of the most respected open-source notes apps around. It's Markdown-first, runs on every major platform, has a plugin ecosystem, and supports end-to-end encrypted sync with a handful of providers including Joplin Cloud, Nextcloud, and your own WebDAV server. For privacy-conscious users who want to self-host everything or use their existing cloud storage, Joplin offers genuine control over where your data goes and how it's protected.

Snoq approaches privacy differently. Instead of giving you the tools to configure encryption, it just encrypts everything automatically. There's no sync to set up, no cloud provider to choose, no plugin to install. Your notes are AES-256 encrypted before they hit disk — derived from your password via Argon2id — and that's the only mode the app has.

If you value open source, cross-platform support, and Markdown portability, Joplin is a serious contender. If you want encrypted notes that just work on Windows without any configuration, Snoq might be the simpler answer. The difference comes down to one question: do you want to control the security setup, or do you want it handled for you?

Encryption: opt-in vs always-on

This is the most important practical difference. Joplin's encryption is opt-in, and it only applies to synced data. If you use Joplin in local-only mode without sync, your notes are stored as unencrypted SQLite database files on your disk. Anyone who accesses your filesystem can read them. To get E2EE in Joplin, you need to configure a sync provider, enable encryption in settings, and generate and back up an encryption key.

Snoq has one mode: encrypted. There's no local-only-unencrypted option because the entire premise of the app is that your notes are always protected, regardless of whether you've read the documentation. The encryption setup happens once when you create your password, and from that point on it's invisible. You open the app, write, and close it. The security is always there.

Neither approach is wrong, but they serve different users. Joplin's flexibility means you can make different security decisions for different note categories. Snoq's inflexibility means you can't accidentally leave notes unencrypted.

Markdown vs rich text

Joplin is Markdown-first. You type in Markdown and either see the raw syntax or switch to a split preview mode. There's a WYSIWYG editor available in newer versions, but it's a secondary option for a tool that was built around Markdown. This is excellent for developers, writers who know Markdown, and anyone who values portable plain-text files. Your Joplin notes are standard Markdown files you can open in any editor if you export them.

Snoq uses a WYSIWYG rich text editor powered by Quill.js. Bold is bold, not bold. Headings are rendered immediately. You don't need to know any markup syntax. This matters most for users who find Markdown friction-adding rather than friction-reducing — people who want to write, not compose. The tradeoff is that your notes are stored in the app's encrypted format, not as portable Markdown files.

There's no right answer here. If Markdown is already part of how you think about text, Joplin's approach will feel natural. If you'd rather format with a button than with syntax, Snoq's editor removes a layer of abstraction.

Electron vs native WPF

Joplin is an Electron application, which is how it runs on Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, and Android with a consistent codebase. The benefit is obvious: one app everywhere. The cost is that on Windows it carries Chromium with it — a full browser engine running as the application shell. Joplin uses meaningful memory at idle and starts a little slower than a native app would.

Snoq is a native WPF application. The shell is native Windows, and the editor component uses embedded CefSharp specifically for the Quill.js editor — not the whole application. Startup is noticeably faster and the overall resource footprint is smaller. It also means Snoq will only ever exist on Windows, which is a deliberate choice: doing one platform well rather than five platforms adequately.

Setup and the path to "secure"

Getting to genuinely encrypted notes in Joplin involves several steps: install the app, choose a sync provider (Joplin Cloud, Nextcloud, Dropbox, OneDrive, WebDAV, or local filesystem), configure the sync credentials, navigate to Encryption settings, enable E2EE, and back up your master key somewhere safe. This isn't difficult for a technical user, but it requires understanding what each step means and making deliberate choices. If you skip a step or misconfigure something, your notes may not be encrypted even though you think they are.

Snoq's setup is: install, choose a password, open the editor. That's it. The encryption is automatic and non-optional. There are no configuration steps to get security right because there are no configuration steps at all. For someone who wants private notes without becoming an expert in key management, that's meaningful.

Side-by-side comparison

Where Joplin has the edge

• Open source. The code is public, the encryption implementation is auditable, and the project has a large community actively reviewing changes. For high-stakes privacy use, that transparency is hard to put a price on.
• Cross-platform with E2EE sync. Same app and same encrypted vault on Windows, Mac, Linux, iOS, and Android. If you use multiple devices or operating systems, Joplin follows you.
• Markdown and file portability. Export your notes as standard Markdown files and open them in any editor. Your data isn't locked to any app's format.
• Plugin ecosystem. Hundreds of community plugins extend Joplin with features Snoq doesn't have: templates, backlinks, drawing, custom sorting, calendar views, and much more.
• Mobile apps. Full-featured iOS and Android apps with E2EE sync. Your encrypted notes go with you.
• Self-hostable sync. You can sync via your own Nextcloud, WebDAV server, or local file system — no third-party cloud required at all.

Where Snoq has the edge

• Encryption is always on, no config needed. In Joplin, unencrypted local-only use is the default. In Snoq, there is no unencrypted mode. You can't accidentally leave notes unprotected.
• Native WPF app. Faster startup, lower memory usage, and a Windows-native feel. Joplin's Electron shell carries the overhead of a full browser engine.
• Zero friction onboarding. No account, no email, no setup steps. Install, set a password, write. That's the entire onboarding.
• Rich text WYSIWYG editor. No Markdown syntax to remember — format with buttons, not asterisks. More accessible for non-developer users.
• Zero telemetry. No data collection of any kind. Snoq connects to nothing.
• Argon2id key derivation. The key derivation function is specifically hardened against brute-force attacks, not just adequate for the purpose.

So which one should you pick?

If you're a developer or power user who wants open-source software, uses multiple devices, cares about Markdown portability, and is comfortable configuring a sync backend and enabling E2EE manually — Joplin is the stronger tool. The flexibility and cross-platform support are genuine advantages that Snoq doesn't offer.

If you're a Windows user who wants encrypted notes to just work — without reading documentation, without choosing a sync provider, without any configuration steps — Snoq is the more direct path. The security is automatic, the editor is immediate, and there's nothing to misconfigure.

Both are completely free. The practical test is to ask yourself: do you need notes on your phone or other computers? If yes, Joplin. If it's just one Windows machine and you want private notes with zero overhead, give Snoq a try.