QField vs Field Maps: two ecosystems, two approaches

In short: the app follows the ecosystem

The choice between QField and Field Maps depends less on the apps themselves than on the ecosystem around them. ArcGIS Field Maps is Esri's mobile app: it relies on an ArcGIS Online or ArcGIS Enterprise organization, where maps and forms are configured with Field Maps Designer. QField is the open source mobile app of the QGIS ecosystem: it opens a QGIS project exactly as you prepared it on your computer.

If your organization already works in ArcGIS, Field Maps fits right in. If it works in QGIS, or wants to move away from licenses, QField is the logical extension. The rest of this comparison details both cases.

Both apps evolve quickly: each release adds features, and a comparison is no substitute for a trial. Before deciding, check in each project's official documentation that the feature that matters to you exists in the current version, then test it on your own case, with your own data and your own surveyors.

QField vs Field Maps, criterion by criterion

Facts checked on esri.com (ArcGIS Field Maps overview page) and docs.qfield.org on 11/09/2026. We do not publish ArcGIS prices: they depend on user type and contract, check with Esri.

When Field Maps is the better fit

To be fair, Field Maps is the right choice in several situations.

• Your organization already has ArcGIS Online or ArcGIS Enterprise, with data and maps in place.
• Your processes rely on downstream Esri tools: dashboards, Survey123, business apps.
• You need features specific to the Esri ecosystem, such as tasks assigned to crews or utility network tracing.
• Your teams are trained on ArcGIS and switching tools would cost more than it saves.

In these cases, switching apps to save on mobile licenses often just moves the cost to data conversion and training.

Field Maps also has the advantage of a single vendor and centralized commercial support: for a large organization, having one contractual point of contact for desktop GIS, the server and the mobile apps simplifies procurement, contract renewals and incident handling across the whole platform. That consistency has real value when GIS is spread across many departments, each with its own habits, budgets and training needs.

When QField is the best choice

• You work in QGIS. The collection project is a QGIS project: same styles, same forms, same expressions. No extra configuration tool to learn.
• You want open formats. Data stays in GeoPackage or PostGIS, readable by any GIS software.
• Budget matters. The app is open source and free. With LizPack Field, the Free plan covers 200 MB and one project; the Pro plan unlocks unlimited projects, up to 5 collaborators and writing data into PostGIS.
• Teams are large or change often. Adding a surveyor does not require buying a software license.
• You want the full chain in open source. Data in PostGIS, a Lizmap map updated at each sync, a map shared by link with LizPack Viewer.

LizPack Field Pro plan: 15 USD per month at the time of writing; current prices on the pricing page.

One point often underestimated is continuity between office and field. With QField, whoever prepares the project sees on their computer exactly what surveyors will see: same colors, same labels, same forms. A style or form change is made once, in QGIS, then republished. There is no second configuration to maintain in a separate tool, which reduces gaps between what was planned and what is collected. For teams that already produce their paper maps or atlases in QGIS, it also ensures that the collected data fits into their existing layouts without conversion.

Where your data lives

Beyond features, the QField vs Field Maps comparison raises a fundamental question: where is the data stored, in what format, and what happens if you change tools?

Neither option is bad in itself. ArcGIS Enterprise also lets you keep data on your own servers. The difference lies mainly in format: with QField, collected data is in an open format readable by any GIS software from day one, which lowers the cost of any future change of tool.

For government bodies and organizations subject to data residency rules, the LizPack Field Enterprise plan deploys the sync service on their own infrastructure. The QField app stays the same for surveyors.

Compare the total cost, not just licenses

Comparing QField and Field Maps only on the price of a mobile license skews the decision. The real cost of a collection solution is made up of several items, to be assessed over three to five years.

On the QField side, the app is free and the LizPack Field Free plan covers 200 MB and one project, which allows a real trial with no commitment. The Pro plan adds unlimited projects, up to 5 collaborators and writing to PostGIS. To publish a web map afterwards, LizPack Map hosts Lizmap and QGIS Server; the cost items of an open source web GIS are detailed in the cost of an open source web GIS.

LizPack prices at the time of writing: LizPack Field Pro 15 USD per month; LizPack Map Basic 10 USD per month and Pro 20 USD per month, after a 30-day free trial. Current pricing on the pricing page. For ArcGIS, ask Esri or its distributor for a quote.

Moving from Field Maps to QField: the method

If the QField vs Field Maps comparison leans you toward QField while you use ArcGIS, the transition needs preparation. It does not require switching everything at once: many organizations start with a pilot project and keep ArcGIS for the rest while they evaluate.

1. Inventory your collection maps: layers, fields, value domains, attachments, offline areas in use.
2. Export the layers to an open format, preferably GeoPackage, or load them into a PostGIS database.
3. Rebuild the project in QGIS: styles, labels and forms, turning each value domain into a value list in the layer properties.
4. Prepare an offline basemap limited to the work area.
5. Publish the project to a sync service, invite two or three surveyors and run a short pilot campaign.
6. Compare the data received with an equivalent Field Maps campaign, then decide whether to expand.

The longest task is almost always rebuilding the forms. Allow a few hours per complex layer, more if your forms rely heavily on Arcade expressions, which do not exist in QGIS: their equivalents are written with QGIS expressions. Attachments, especially photos, are usually carried over as files linked to each feature.

Also plan for training. The QField app is simple for a surveyor, but whoever prepares the projects must be comfortable with QGIS Desktop. If your team comes from ArcGIS Pro, allow a few days to get up to speed. LizPack offers this kind of support on quote through its services.

Finally, look at the total cost over several years, not only the price of mobile licenses: project preparation time, training, data hosting, and what you will pay to publish the data on a web map afterwards.

A practical tip for the pilot: choose a real but limited campaign, with a single layer and a willing team. Record the time spent preparing the project, the difficulties surveyors ran into and the quality of the data received. These figures are worth more than any comparison when deciding, and they will help convince colleagues internally if you extend QField to other departments.

Three typical situations

• A local government already equipped with ArcGIS Enterprise. Its departments use ArcGIS Pro, its data is in the Esri system, its dashboards too. Field Maps is the consistent choice; QField is justified only for an isolated need, for instance partner teams without licenses.
• A consultancy that works in QGIS. It already prepares its projects in QGIS and delivers data to clients as GeoPackage. QField fits seamlessly into its workflow, and syncing through LizPack Field avoids setting up a server.
• An organization present in several countries with changing teams. Surveyors change often, the network is patchy, the budget per surveyor matters. A free app on Android and iOS, a project stored offline and open formats make QField a natural candidate.

In in-between cases, for example an organization that uses ArcGIS at headquarters and QGIS in the field, nothing prevents the two tools from coexisting. QField's open formats load into ArcGIS, and the reverse is possible through export. What matters is deciding which database is the reference, to avoid two versions of the same data.

Six questions to ask before deciding

1. Which GIS software do the people who will prepare the projects use today: ArcGIS Pro or QGIS?
2. How many surveyors will collect data a year from now, and will that number vary by season or project?
3. Must the data stay on your own servers, or is a hosted service acceptable?
4. Should the data feed an existing database, and which one?
5. How will the data be published afterwards: dashboard, web map, report?
6. Who will support surveyors when a sync fails or a form causes trouble?

If most answers point you back to ArcGIS, stay with Field Maps. If they point to QGIS, open formats and a PostGIS database, QField with LizPack Field is the consistent choice. Either way, write the answers down: they will serve as the specification for the pilot.

The role of LizPack Field

QField alone is enough for a single surveyor who copies the project by hand. A team needs a sync service. LizPack Field relies on the same sync technology as QFieldCloud and works with the official QField app. LizPack is an open source geospatial infrastructure, not the author of QField: it hosts and maintains the sync service, with a dashboard in four languages, one account shared with LizPack Map, LizPack's Lizmap hosting, and a connection to your PostGIS databases. See what LizPack does.

To start a campaign, follow the QField field data collection guide. If your need looks more like a questionnaire than a map, also compare with Survey123, KoboToolbox and ODK.

Frequently asked questions