Overleaf vs. Local-First Editors: An Honest 2026 Comparison

The Tool That Changed Academic Writing

Overleaf transformed how researchers write LaTeX. Before Overleaf, using LaTeX meant installing a distribution, managing packages, dealing with compilation errors locally, and emailing ZIP files to collaborators. Overleaf eliminated all of that with a browser-based editor that just worked.

For millions of researchers, Overleaf became the default. Its combination of zero-setup access, real-time collaboration, and extensive template library made LaTeX accessible to anyone with a web browser.

But heavy users tell a different story. Conference deadline days when compilation queues stretch to minutes. Complex theses that hit timeout limits. Grant proposals stored on third-party servers. Flights and train rides without connectivity where work grinds to a halt.

These aren't edge cases. They're everyday realities that have researchers asking: is there a better way?

In 2026, alternatives exist that address these pain points while preserving what made Overleaf great. Let's examine both approaches honestly.

What Researchers Actually Need

Before comparing tools, let's establish the requirements that matter most:

Reliable Compilation

Documents must compile consistently. A tool that works 95% of the time but fails during deadline crunch is worse than one that works 100% of the time with less convenience.

Collaboration

Academic writing is collaborative. Multiple authors need to work together, sometimes simultaneously, often across institutions and time zones.

Accessibility

Work from anywhere, on any device. University computers, personal laptops, tablets—the tool should adapt to where you are.

Speed

Compilation delay directly impacts productivity. Waiting 30 seconds for every change accumulates into hours over a thesis.

Privacy

Some research is sensitive. Pre-publication findings, proprietary methodologies, HIPAA-covered data—these have real privacy requirements.

Offline Access

Travel, poor connectivity, coffee shops without WiFi. The ability to work without internet isn't optional for many researchers.

The Cloud-Based Approach

Cloud editors like Overleaf compile your documents on remote servers. You access everything through a web browser.

How It Works

Your browser → Overleaf servers → Compilation → PDF back to browser

All processing happens remotely. Your documents are stored on Overleaf's infrastructure, synced across devices automatically.

Strengths

Zero Installation No LaTeX distribution to install. No package management. Open a browser, start writing. This accessibility is genuinely revolutionary for LaTeX adoption.

Real-Time Collaboration Multiple authors can edit simultaneously. Changes appear live. Comments and track changes are built in. For teams, this is transformative.

Version History Every change is tracked automatically. Revert to any previous state. Never lose work. Premium plans extend history indefinitely.

Template Library Thousands of journal and conference templates. Find your venue, click use, start writing. No hunting for style files.

Wide Adoption Collaborators probably already use Overleaf. Sharing is as simple as sending a link. Lower barriers to collaboration.

Limitations

Compilation Queues Free tier users share server resources. During peak times—conference deadlines, end of semester—you wait in line behind paying users. What takes 5 seconds at 3 AM might take 2 minutes at 3 PM.

Timeout Limits Complex documents can exceed server time limits. Extensive TikZ diagrams, large bibliographies, many high-resolution images—any of these can push you past limits. The solution is often simplifying your document or upgrading your plan.

Internet Required No connectivity means no work. Flights, trains, remote locations, coffee shops with unreliable WiFi—you're stuck. There's no offline mode.

Data Location Your documents live on Overleaf's servers. For most research, this is fine. For sensitive data—HIPAA-covered research, industry collaborations with NDAs, pre-publication findings—it can be problematic.

Cost Scaling Free tier limitations push serious users toward paid plans. Institutional subscriptions help, but not everyone has access.

The Local-First Approach

Local-first editors compile documents on your device. Modern implementations use WebAssembly to run LaTeX directly in your browser.

How It Works

Your browser → Local LaTeX engine → Compilation → PDF in your browser

No network round-trip for compilation. Documents can stay entirely on your device.

Strengths

Instant Compilation No queue. No network latency. Your CPU is dedicated to your work. Compilation that took 30 seconds remotely takes 2 seconds locally.

Works Offline Full functionality without internet. Write on planes, in areas with poor connectivity, during internet outages. Your work continues uninterrupted.

Privacy by Design Documents never leave your device unless you explicitly share them. No third-party server stores your sensitive research. This satisfies even strict data handling requirements.

No Artificial Limits No compile timeouts. No file size restrictions. No storage quotas. Your hardware is the only limit.

Peer-to-Peer Collaboration Modern P2P technology enables real-time collaboration without central servers. Documents sync directly between collaborators. No third party ever sees your content.

Limitations

Uses Local Resources Compilation uses your device's CPU. Modern computers handle this easily, but very old hardware might struggle with complex documents. This is rarely an issue in practice.

Initial Engine Download The LaTeX engine downloads once (~50-100MB) and is cached. Subsequent loads are instant. But the first load requires connectivity.

Smaller Community Newer ecosystem means smaller community forums, fewer blog posts, less institutional familiarity. This gap is closing as adoption grows.

Collaborator Familiarity If your collaborators only know Overleaf, there's a learning curve. Though LaTeX itself is identical.

Feature-by-Feature Comparison

| Feature | Cloud (Overleaf) | Local-First (Thetapad) | |---------|------------------|------------------------| | Setup required | None | None (browser-based) | | Compilation location | Remote servers | Your device | | Compile speed | Variable (5s-120s) | Consistent (1-5s) | | Offline support | No | Yes | | Document privacy | Server-stored | Local-only by default | | Real-time collaboration | Yes (server-mediated) | Yes (P2P) | | Free tier limits | Timeouts, queues, history | None | | Complex document handling | May timeout | No limits | | Template library | Extensive | Growing | | Git integration | Premium only | Standard | | Version history | Yes (limited free) | Git-based |

Decision Framework

Choose Overleaf When:

Your institution provides premium access If you have an institutional subscription, many limitations disappear. No queues, longer timeouts, extended history.

All collaborators already use it Minimizing friction with existing collaborators matters. If everyone knows Overleaf, stick with it.

Your documents are simple Documents that compile quickly and don't approach limits work fine on free tier.

You have no privacy concerns If your research isn't sensitive and you're comfortable with cloud storage, this isn't a factor.

You always have reliable internet If you never work offline, this limitation doesn't affect you.

Choose Local-First When:

Complex documents timeout on Overleaf Long theses, heavy TikZ usage, large bibliographies—if you're hitting limits, local compilation eliminates them.

You need to work offline Regular travel, unreliable connectivity, or preference for offline work makes local-first essential.

Your research involves sensitive data HIPAA-covered research, industry NDAs, proprietary methodologies, pre-publication findings—local-first keeps data under your control.

You want consistent, fast compilation No queues, no variability. Every compile is fast regardless of what other users are doing.

You prefer not to depend on third-party services Service changes, price increases, outages—local-first reduces external dependencies.

The Privacy Question

This deserves deeper examination. When you use a cloud-based editor, your documents—including unpublished research, grant proposals, and proprietary methodologies—are stored and processed on servers you don't control.

Who Cares About Privacy?

HIPAA-Covered Research Medical research with patient data has specific data handling requirements. Cloud storage may or may not comply depending on your institution's agreements.

Industry Collaborations Corporate partners often include NDAs about proprietary information. Their legal teams may have opinions about where that data lives.

Pre-Publication Research Novel findings represent significant intellectual property. Before publication, they're essentially trade secrets.

Grant Proposals Proposals contain novel ideas before any protection. Competitive fields have real concerns about information security.

Export-Controlled Research ITAR and similar regulations restrict where certain research data can be processed.

Local-First Privacy Model

With local-first tools, your documents stay on your device by default:

• No server storage: Documents exist only where you put them
• No processing on external servers: Compilation happens locally
• You control sharing: Explicitly choose what to share and with whom
• P2P collaboration: Even shared documents don't pass through central servers

For privacy-sensitive research, this model eliminates entire categories of concerns.

The Collaboration Question

A common misconception: local-first means no collaboration. Modern technology has solved this.

How P2P Collaboration Works

Alice's device ←→ Bob's device
     ↓              ↓
  Local copy    Local copy
     ↓              ↓
  Local compile  Local compile

Changes sync directly between collaborators using CRDTs (Conflict-free Replicated Data Types). No central server mediates the connection.

Benefits of P2P

Privacy: No third party ever sees your content Speed: No server round-trip for sync Resilience: Works on local networks without internet Cost: No server infrastructure to maintain

Comparison with Server-Mediated Collaboration

| Aspect | Server-Mediated | Peer-to-Peer | |--------|-----------------|--------------| | Latency | Server round-trip | Direct | | Privacy | Server sees all | End-to-end encrypted | | Offline sync | No | When peers reconnect | | Maximum scale | Unlimited | Practical limit ~20 | | Infrastructure | Required | None |

For typical academic collaborations (2-5 authors), P2P works excellently. For massive collaborations (dozens of simultaneous editors), server-mediated approaches scale better.

Making the Transition

If you're considering switching, the good news: LaTeX is LaTeX. Your documents work identically regardless of which editor you use.

What Transfers Directly

• All .tex files work the same
• BibTeX/Biber bibliography files function identically
• Images and figures require no changes
• Custom style files and packages work
• All your LaTeX knowledge applies

The Import Process

1. Export your Overleaf project as ZIP
2. Import ZIP into local-first editor
3. Compile and verify
4. Continue working

Most transitions take minutes, not hours.

Gradual Transition Strategy

You don't have to switch everything at once:

1. Try new projects locally: Start fresh work in the new tool
2. Keep existing collaborations on Overleaf: Don't disrupt ongoing work
3. Import completed projects: Move finished work for archival
4. Evaluate over weeks: Make the permanent switch once comfortable

Working with Both

Some researchers maintain both:

• Use Overleaf for collaborations with Overleaf-only co-authors
• Use local-first for independent work and privacy-sensitive projects
• Sync between them using Git

LaTeX's portability makes this practical.

Looking Forward

The LaTeX ecosystem is evolving. Competition drives innovation:

• Cloud editors are improving performance and adding features
• Local-first tools are maturing and building communities
• Hybrid approaches are emerging that blend both models

Researchers have more capable tools to choose from than ever before. The "best" choice depends on your specific needs:

• Prioritize collaboration ease? Cloud editors excel.
• Prioritize privacy and offline? Local-first wins.
• Need both? Use both, or wait for hybrid solutions.

Conclusion

Overleaf deserves credit for making LaTeX accessible to millions. Its impact on academic writing is genuinely transformative. For many researchers, it remains the right choice.

But it's not the only choice. Local-first editors address real limitations:

• Speed: Compilation without queues or timeouts
• Privacy: Documents that never leave your device
• Offline: Full functionality without internet
• Freedom: No artificial limits on complexity

The right tool is the one that lets you focus on your research, not fight with your editor. For some researchers, that's Overleaf. For others, it's a local-first alternative. For many, it might be both, used for different purposes.

What matters most is that you have options.

Try Thetapad's local-first approach for your next project. Import your Overleaf documents in minutes and experience instant, private, offline-capable LaTeX editing.