Comparison and differences between QGIS and ArcGIS
The friends of GISGeography.com have made an invaluable article in which they compare GQIS with ArcGIS, in nothing less than 27 topics.
It is clear that the life of both platforms is abysmal, considering that the origins of QGIS go back to 2002, just when it came out the last stable version of ArcView 3x ... that already included enough route.
Undoubtedly, we have never before seen the maturity and obsession of the Geospatial issue like the one experienced by the users of these two solutions. On the one hand, ESRI supported by a private trajectory of a company with more than 40 years in the market, with the merit of being the medium that came to popularize the spatial vision from a marketing and non-specialized public perspective; while QGIS is the most provisional initiative within the GIS approach, which managed to take advantage of all the potential of the OpenSource model, orchestrating a community that is led not only by volunteers but also at a high professional level.
In general, the comparison gives us interesting insights into aspects such as:
- 1. QGIS has an approach to open to any type of data.
- 2. Both seek to simplify the presentation layer for the end user, although with QGIS it is not so simple if we consider that the richness is the plugins.
- 3. The data exploration between QGIS Browser and ArcCatalog are interesting, but they fall short as long as they depend on the existence of metadata. It is always difficult to search through the data.
- 4. Joining tables are functional in both, with slight QGSIS advantages.
- 5. Reproject and change coordinate system. Both are acceptable in handling native projection and on the fly, although the gain has been that QGIS finally managed to read a projection from a .PRJ file without errors.
- 6. The vast arsenal of online data in ArcGIS Online is a pending issue for QGIS that with the OpenLayers plugin allows many background layers but there is not much else.
- 7. Geoprocessing is exceeded by QGIS, but not because ArcMap does not have it, but because it depends on the type of license that is available, so the different functionalities can be used. Of course, among so many tools it is possible to get lost before trying them all, if we consider all the geoprocessing routines that GRASS and SAGA have, of which we would already like to have a single kit.
- Of course, this is a situation that no longer has to do with the capacity of the software but with the business model. As QGIS is GPL licensed, everything is available.
- 8. The world of plugins is wide on both platforms. Although QGIS is very broad in this, where there are plugins for almost everything, the difficult thing is what ArcGIS Marektplace makes easy, since there are solutions for everything with a specialization approach easier to find. Of course, you have to pay.
- Although AGIS is a robust geoprocessing machine, it does not have the full range of specialized ESRI tools.
- 9. Raster data management is exceeded by ArcGIS. Although QGIS + GRASS offer a battle, there is always something ArcGIS makes it easier for you; if not by added values, by the difficulty of compatibility of plugins with respect to recent versions.
- 10. ArcGIS Geostatistics tools cannot be compared. They are not only functional, but educational.
- 11. With LiDAR data, you should think, because while some suggest that ArcGIS has gone overboard, others say that ESRI is thinking of imposing its own remote sensing format.
I suggest you give it a look and add it to your collection, since the article beyond wanting to defend a tool (which would be the most obvious), compares 27 similarities in aspects such as:
- Network Analysis
- Workflow Management (Model Builder)
- Final cartographic products
- symbology
- Annotations and Labels
- Automation of continuous maps
- 3D Navigation
- Animated Maps
- Thematic
- Advanced Edition
- Topological cleaning
- Editing Tabular Data
- XY Coordinates and Coding
- Transformation of geometry types
- Support Documentation
In short, it is hard work that has led to this article. In many respects it surely requires more depth, which is only known by those who have used all the ArcGIS functionalities and the guts of the QGIS plugins. However, something is satisfactory:
Never before have we seen an epic battle in GIS software like the one we are now seeing.
To read the full article, See the link.
By the way, I suggest you follow up on the account @GisGeography, Which we will have to add to the Top40 Geospatial Twitter.
aduh ini google translate sekali
Good