Atlas vs Felt

Atlas and Felt both bring mapping into the browser and make collaboration a first-class feature. If you are evaluating modern web-based mapping platforms, this guide breaks down where each tool excels so you can pick the right fit for your team.

Introducing Atlas and Felt

Atlas

Atlas is a browser-based collaborative GIS platform that combines map creation, spatial analysis, and no-code app building in a single workspace. Teams use Atlas to upload data (CSV, GeoJSON, shapefiles), run spatial operations like buffers and heatmaps, and publish interactive maps or full applications—without writing code. A free tier makes it accessible for individuals, while paid plans add advanced permissions, field data collection, and embeddable map apps.

Felt

Felt is a web-based mapping tool designed to make collaborative map-making as intuitive as working in a shared document. It gained traction for its clean, polished interface and the ability to invite teammates to draw, annotate, and style maps in real time. Felt focuses on visual storytelling and quick sharing, with integrations for common geospatial file formats and public data layers.

Quick Comparison Table

Data Management and Uploads

Atlas

Atlas supports a wide range of geospatial and tabular formats including CSV, GeoJSON, Shapefile, KML, and GPX. Uploaded datasets live in a centralized data library that can be reused across multiple maps and projects. Geocoding and data cleaning tools are built in, so you can go from a raw spreadsheet to a styled map without leaving the platform.

• Pros: Broad format support, reusable data library, built-in geocoding
• Cons: Large datasets may require a paid plan for faster processing

Felt

Felt handles common formats like GeoJSON, CSV, KML, and Shapefile. It also provides access to curated public data layers—census boundaries, climate data, and similar reference layers—that you can overlay without sourcing files yourself. The upload experience is drag-and-drop simple.

• Pros: Curated public data layers, clean drag-and-drop upload
• Cons: No centralized data library for reuse across projects, fewer advanced import options

Which to Choose?

Pick Atlas if your workflow involves reusing the same datasets across many maps or if you need built-in geocoding. Choose Felt if you value quick access to curated public reference layers and prefer a minimal upload experience.

Collaboration and Sharing

Atlas

Atlas offers real-time collaboration with granular role-based permissions—viewer, editor, admin—so organizations can control who sees and edits what. Comments, activity logs, and version history keep distributed teams aligned. Published maps can be shared via URL or embedded into websites and internal tools.

• Pros: Granular permissions, activity tracking, embeddable maps and apps
• Cons: Permission setup adds a step for very small, casual teams

Felt

Felt's collaboration model mirrors the simplicity of a shared Google Doc. Anyone with a link can view, and invited collaborators can draw, annotate, and edit simultaneously. The real-time cursor presence makes pair-mapping feel natural. Sharing a finished map is as easy as copying a link.

• Pros: Extremely low friction for inviting collaborators, intuitive real-time presence
• Cons: Limited permission granularity, less suited for organizations needing strict access control

Which to Choose?

Choose Atlas when you need role-based access control and audit trails for larger or more regulated teams. Choose Felt when speed of collaboration matters more than permission complexity.

Spatial Analysis

Atlas

Atlas includes a suite of spatial analysis tools: buffer zones, heatmaps, spatial joins, attribute filtering, and area/distance measurements. These operations run in-browser without plugins or desktop software, making Atlas a viable lightweight GIS for teams that need more than just visualization.

• Pros: Real spatial analysis without desktop GIS, buffers and joins in-browser
• Cons: Not a full replacement for desktop GIS on very advanced geoprocessing tasks

Felt

Felt is primarily a visualization and storytelling tool. You can measure distances and areas, and apply basic styling, but it does not offer spatial operations like buffers, joins, or geocoding natively. Users who need analysis typically pre-process data in another tool before importing into Felt.

• Pros: Clean visualization layer, simple measurement tools
• Cons: No spatial joins, buffers, or geocoding—analysis must happen externally

Which to Choose?

If your team needs to run spatial operations directly in the browser, Atlas is the clear choice. If you only need to visualize pre-processed data on a polished map, Felt handles that well.

No-Code App Building

Atlas

Atlas goes beyond maps with a no-code app builder that lets you create interactive applications with filters, search, forms, charts, and dashboards—all connected to your spatial data. These apps can be published and shared externally, turning a dataset into a self-service tool for stakeholders who never open a GIS.

• Pros: Full app builder with forms, filters, and dashboards; shareable externally
• Cons: Learning curve to set up complex app configurations

Felt

Felt does not offer an app-building layer. Its output is a styled, interactive map that viewers can pan, zoom, and click on for pop-ups. For teams that only need a shareable map with annotations, this is enough, but there is no path to building filtered views or input forms on top of the data.

• Pros: Focused product—maps are the deliverable
• Cons: No way to build interactive apps, forms, or dashboards

Which to Choose?

Choose Atlas if your end goal is an interactive application or dashboard built on spatial data. Choose Felt if your deliverable is a well-designed, shareable map and nothing more.

Field Data Collection

Atlas

Atlas includes mobile-friendly data collection forms that let field teams capture locations, photos, and attribute data directly into the platform. Collected data syncs back to the map in real time, closing the loop between office analysis and on-the-ground observation.

• Pros: Integrated field forms, real-time sync, photo capture
• Cons: Advanced form logic may require a paid plan

Felt

Felt does not have a field data collection feature. Teams that need to gather data in the field would need a separate tool (such as Survey123 or KoboToolbox) and then import the results into Felt manually.

• Pros: N/A
• Cons: No native field collection—requires a separate tool and manual import

Which to Choose?

If field data collection is part of your workflow, Atlas handles it natively. Felt users will need to pair it with another tool.

Pricing and Value

Atlas

Atlas offers a free tier that covers individual projects and basic collaboration. Paid plans scale per seat and unlock advanced permissions, larger data limits, and features like the app builder and field collection. Pricing is transparent and accessible for small teams.

• Pros: Generous free tier, scalable paid plans, no per-map charges
• Cons: Advanced features gated behind paid plans

Felt

Felt provides a free plan for individual use and small projects. Team and enterprise plans add collaboration features, private maps, and priority support. Pricing is competitive for teams that primarily need collaborative map visualization.

• Pros: Approachable free plan, competitive team pricing
• Cons: No app-building or analysis features at any price tier

Which to Choose?

Both platforms offer usable free tiers. Atlas provides more value per dollar if you need analysis, apps, or field collection. Felt is a strong value if collaborative map visualization is your primary need.

Final Thoughts

Choose Atlas if you:

• Need spatial analysis tools (buffers, joins, heatmaps) in the browser
• Want to build no-code apps with filters, forms, and dashboards on top of your maps
• Require role-based permissions and audit trails for larger teams
• Need integrated field data collection with real-time sync
• Want a centralized data library reusable across projects

Choose Felt if you:

• Prioritize a polished, minimal interface for visual map-making
• Want the simplest possible collaboration experience with link sharing
• Need access to curated public data layers out of the box
• Only need to produce shareable maps—not apps or analysis
• Work in a small, informal team where permission granularity is unnecessary

For a feature checklist and FAQs, see the Felt alternative page.