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

The Tool Everyone Uses—But Nobody Loves Unconditionally

Overleaf changed academic writing. No installation. No package management. Real-time collaboration. For millions of researchers, it's the default.

But talk to heavy users and you'll hear the complaints:

• "I hit the compile timeout on my thesis—again"
• "Free tier queues during conference deadlines are brutal"
• "I can't work on planes"
• "My university's IT is nervous about where our grant proposals are stored"

These aren't edge cases. They're common frustrations that send researchers looking for alternatives.

In 2026, those alternatives exist. Let's take an honest look at when Overleaf still makes sense—and when local-first editors might be the better choice.

What Researchers Actually Need

Before comparing tools, let's establish what matters most for academic writing:

1. Reliable compilation - Documents must compile consistently
2. Collaboration - Multiple authors need to work together
3. Accessibility - Work from anywhere, on any device
4. Speed - No waiting around for compilation
5. Privacy - Sensitive research must stay secure
6. Offline access - Work without internet dependency

The Cloud-Based Approach (Overleaf)

Overleaf pioneered browser-based LaTeX editing. Here's what it does well:

Strengths

• Zero setup: No installation required
• Collaboration: Real-time editing with multiple users
• Version history: Built-in tracking of changes
• Template library: Thousands of journal templates
• Wide adoption: Many collaborators already use it

Limitations

• Compilation queues: Free tier users wait in line
• Timeout limits: Complex documents can fail to compile
• Internet required: No offline functionality
• Data location: Documents stored on third-party servers
• Cost scaling: Premium features require paid plans

The Local-First Approach (Thetapad)

Local-first editors compile documents on your device while still providing modern collaboration features.

Strengths

• Instant compilation: No queues, no timeouts
• Works offline: Full functionality without internet
• Privacy by design: Documents never leave your device
• No artificial limits: Compile as often as you want
• P2P collaboration: Real-time editing without central servers

Limitations

• Browser resources: Uses your device's computing power
• Initial learning curve: Different mental model from cloud tools
• Newer ecosystem: Smaller community (for now)

Head-to-Head Comparison

| Feature | Overleaf | Thetapad | |---------|----------|----------| | Compilation location | Remote servers | Your browser | | Compile speed | Variable (queue-based) | Instant | | Offline support | No | Yes | | Document privacy | Stored on servers | Local only | | Real-time collaboration | Yes (central server) | Yes (P2P) | | Free tier limits | Compile timeouts, queues | None | | Complex document handling | May timeout | No limits | | Template library | Extensive | Growing |

When to Choose What

Choose Overleaf if:

• Your institution provides a premium subscription
• All your collaborators already use it
• You're working on simple documents that compile quickly
• You don't have privacy concerns about your research

Choose a local-first editor if:

• You work on complex documents that timeout on Overleaf
• You need to work offline (travel, poor connectivity)
• Your research involves sensitive or proprietary data
• You want consistent, fast compilation without queues
• You prefer not to depend on third-party services

The Privacy Question

This deserves special attention. 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.

For many researchers, this is fine. For others, it's a dealbreaker:

• HIPAA-covered research may have specific data handling requirements
• Industry collaborations often include NDAs about proprietary information
• Pre-publication research represents significant intellectual property
• Grant proposals contain novel ideas before any protection

Local-first tools sidestep these concerns entirely. Your documents stay on your device, period.

The Collaboration Myth

A common misconception is that local-first means no collaboration. Modern P2P technology enables real-time collaborative editing without a central server:

1. Documents sync directly between collaborators
2. Changes merge automatically using CRDTs
3. No third party ever sees your content
4. Works even on local networks without internet

The collaboration experience is comparable to cloud tools—you just get privacy as a bonus.

Making the Transition

If you're considering a switch, the good news is that LaTeX is LaTeX. Your .tex files work the same regardless of which editor you use. Most tools support:

• Importing ZIP projects from Overleaf
• Standard BibTeX bibliography files
• Common package installations
• Git integration for version control

You don't have to go all-in immediately. Try a local-first editor for a new project and see how it fits your workflow.

Conclusion

There's no universally "best" LaTeX editor. The right choice depends on your specific needs:

• Overleaf remains excellent for teams with institutional subscriptions and simple documents
• Local-first editors offer compelling advantages for privacy-conscious researchers, complex projects, and offline work

The good news? Competition is driving innovation across the board. Researchers have more capable tools to choose from than ever before.

What matters most is finding the tool that lets you focus on your research, not fight with your editor.