Capacities vs Tana: which should you choose in 2026?

Last updated May 2026

Both Capacities and Tana believe your notes should have types. A meeting should behave differently from a book. A person should have different properties from a project. They agree on the philosophy. They disagree on how much power (and complexity) you should need to get there.

Capacities gives you a polished, friendly object model. Define types, add properties, link things together. The interface guides you. You're productive within hours. Tana gives you a programmable outliner with Supertags, fields, views, and command nodes. Define types, write queries, build automations. The system is whatever you design it to be. You're productive within weeks.

Same idea. Different thresholds.

Side-by-side comparison

Where Capacities wins

Approachability. Capacities is the friendlier tool. The object model is intuitive: this is a Book, that's a Person, here are its properties. You don't need to learn a tag architecture or watch hours of tutorials. The interface guides you. Within an hour, you have a working knowledge base. Tana's Supertags, fields, and command nodes take weeks to internalise.

Offline access. Capacities works fully offline and syncs when you're back online. Tana is cloud-only. No internet, no Tana.

Design and polish. Capacities looks and feels considered. Object pages are clean. The interface is calm. Tana's outliner interface is functional but less polished. For people who care about aesthetics, Capacities is more pleasant to use daily.

Free tier. Unlimited notes and objects, 5GB media storage, offline access. Core features work without paying. Tana's free plan gives 500 AI credits and 0.5GB. The credit system means AI features run out monthly.

Simpler mental model. An object has one type. A Book is a Book. The properties are defined. The behaviour is consistent. Tana's Supertags are composable (a node can be #meeting AND #client AND #follow-up simultaneously), which is powerful but creates mental overhead. You have to think about your tag architecture before you can think about your content.

Export. Capacities offers usable export. Tana's export is JSON/Markdown described by users as a technical dump that's hard to use elsewhere. If you leave Tana, your carefully designed Supertag system doesn't come with you in usable form.

Where Tana wins

Power. Tana's ceiling is higher. Supertags are composable: a single node can carry multiple types simultaneously, each contributing its own fields. Live search nodes create dynamic views that update in real time as your graph grows. Command nodes automate multi-step workflows. For people who enjoy designing systems, Tana provides tools Capacities doesn't attempt.

Live search nodes. Define a query and it becomes a persistent, updating view. "Show me all #meetings with #client-x from the last 30 days" creates a view that updates automatically as you add new meetings. Capacities' smart queries on Pro are less flexible.

Composable tags. A node tagged #book and #gift and #recommendation inherits fields from all three Supertags. This multi-type model is more expressive than Capacities' one-type-per-object model. For complex, overlapping categorisation, Tana handles nuance that Capacities can't.

Automations. Command nodes run multi-step workflows. AI agents process meeting transcripts into structured outputs. These are productivity automation features that Capacities doesn't have.

AI agents. Tana's AI can process meeting recordings, generate structured outputs, and run commands. More capable than Capacities' AI assistant for automated workflows. But the credit system (500-5,000/month, non-rolling) means heavy users pay more.

The honest trade-off

Capacities is the tool that works today. You install it, learn the object model, and start building a knowledge base within hours. The ceiling is lower, but the floor is comfortable.

Tana is the tool that might work brilliantly in three weeks. You invest hours learning Supertags, designing your tag architecture, watching tutorials, experimenting with command nodes. The system you build could be extraordinary. Or you could abandon it after the setup overwhelms you. The community calls it "revolutionary" and acknowledges the complexity tax in the same breath.

Both carry a specific risk. Capacities is a small, self-funded team with no VC. Tana is an early-stage product with a small team and an ambitious roadmap. Neither has the established base of Notion or Obsidian. Choosing either is a bet on a future that isn't guaranteed.

A third approach: structure without the schema

Both Capacities and Tana ask you to define structure before the system becomes useful. Object types in Capacities. Supertags in Tana. Properties, fields, relations. You design the architecture, then you fill it with content.

Fabric inverts this. You fill it with content first. The AI infers the structure from what you save.

Fabric doesn't have typed objects or Supertags. You don't define a Book type with author and rating properties. You save a PDF of the book, and the Memory Engine extracts it, indexes it, and maps relationships to your other content automatically. You save a meeting recording, and it's transcribed, summarised, and connected to the documents you discussed. Semantic search finds things by meaning. The AI answers questions across your entire library.

No schema to design. No tag architecture to maintain. No credits that run out. The trade-off: you give up the control that Capacities and Tana provide. The gain: your system works the moment you save your first file, across all content types, without you defining anything.

See the full comparisons: Fabric vs Capacities and Fabric vs Tana.

How to choose

Use Capacities if you want structured, typed knowledge management with a friendly interface. You like the object model but don't want to spend weeks configuring it. You want a generous free tier with offline access. You work alone. You value polish and approachability over raw power.

Use Tana if you want maximum structural power. You enjoy designing systems. You want composable Supertags, live search nodes, and automated workflows. You're willing to invest weeks learning the tool because the payoff is a custom-built knowledge system that no other tool can replicate. You accept the credit system and cloud dependency.

Try Fabric if you don't want to design a schema at all. You want AI that understands your content automatically, search by meaning across all file types, and a workspace that handles more than text. No types to define. No tags to architect. No credits that expire. Save things and ask questions. Generous free plan. See also: best second brain app.

FAQs

Is Capacities easier than Tana?

Significantly. Capacities' object model is intuitive and the interface guides you. Tana's Supertags, fields, and command nodes take weeks to learn. Both are more complex than a simple notes app. Neither is as complex as Obsidian with full plugin configuration. Capacities is the most accessible of the three.

Does Tana work offline?

No. Tana is cloud-only. No offline access. Capacities has full offline support.

Do Tana's AI credits roll over?

No. Unused credits expire at the end of each month. 500 on Free, 2,000 on Plus, 5,000 on Pro. Heavy meeting transcription and AI chat exhaust them quickly. Fabric includes AI at every tier with no credit system.

Which has better data portability?

Capacities. Tana's export is JSON/Markdown described as a technical dump. Your Supertag architecture doesn't transfer in usable form. Capacities offers more practical export. Neither matches Obsidian's local markdown files.

Can I use Capacities and Tana together?

Technically, but there's no integration between them. They use different models. Most people choose one based on their complexity tolerance.

What if I don't want to define types or tags?

Neither tool works well without upfront structure. That's their design philosophy. Fabric takes the opposite approach: the AI infers structure from your content. No types, no tags, no schema. Save things and the system understands them.