Survey123 vs. KoBoToolbox vs. wq
The wq framework leverages the XLSForm standard for survey definitions. This makes it similar to ESRI’s Survey123 and KoBoToolbox’s KoboCollect, though with some key differences. Which solution is right for you will depend on your project goals, budget, and technical expertise.
- Feature Comparison: Platform
- Feature Comparison: Survey Definition
- Feature Comparison: Data Management
- Contact the developer for questions about managed hosting support.
| Survey123 | KoBoToolbox | wq Framework –|–|–|– Database Schema | Per survey | Combined generic table | Per survey Foreign Keys | Within survey (nested) | No | Within and between surveys Offline Usage | Surveys + basemaps | Surveys only | Surveys only¹ XLSForm Formulas | Yes | Yes | No²
- ¹ A custom ServiceWorker can be used to implement offline map support in wq.
- ² Similar functionality can be implemented in wq via custom input components.
| Survey123 | KoBoToolbox | wq Framework –|–|–|– Interactive Analysis Tools | Yes | Yes | No³ Interactive Map Viewers | Yes | Yes | Yes Export to Excel | Yes | Yes | Yes (via plugin) Import from Excel | Yes (via feature layer) | No | Yes (via plugin)
- ³ The Django REST Pandas backend can be used to implement a custom frontend dashboard.
Survey123 may make the most sense if your users already have an ArcGIS license and/or want to easily generate custom map viewers. KoBoToolbox might be the best option if you have many small surveys and/or your data collection goals are still being refined. The wq framework may be your best choice if you have a relatively stable data model, high customization requirements, and/or need to integrate with an existing database.
Fortunately, all three use the same XLSForm standard, so once you have a survey definition you can easily use it to switch between platforms.