Same three notes. Two import choices.

Our Joplin trial now compares Markdown and HTML imports of the same synthetic ENEX file. Both kept the three notes and image. The HTML route retained the tested colour and font-size markup that the Markdown route lost. Download the actual outputs below.

Original trial 23 September 2026 · Import-mode extension 3 October 2026 · Joplin Terminal 3.7.1 · Agent-operated functional tests

What changed between Markdown and HTML?

On 3 October we imported the same fixture into two fresh profiles with synchronization disabled. One used Markdown import mode and the other used HTML. We then exported both using Joplin’s front-matter export command and inspected the files. HTML-mode notes remained HTML files with front matter; their desktop appearance was not evaluated.

Observed in the exported files on 3 October 2026
CheckMarkdown importHTML import
Exported notes3 Markdown files3 HTML files
Red colour and 20px font-size declarationsAbsent; words retainedBoth declarations retained
PNG attachmentIdentical bytesIdentical bytes
One unambiguous internal linkPoints to the exported Markdown notePoints to the exported HTML note
Dates and migration tagPresent in all three notesPresent in all three notes

If presentation carries information in your archive, try the HTML route on a copy before accepting a Markdown conversion. The result here is retention of particular markup in particular files. It does not prove that every complex layout looks identical or that HTML is the better editing format for your work.

Download both actual export sets and the original fixture or inspect the new checks and file hashes.

The original import and restore result

All three synthetic notes arrived in one notebook with four tags, six note-to-tag assignments and one PNG attachment. The exported image was byte-for-byte identical to the input. A link between two notes became a relative link to the correct exported Markdown file.

The input was an ENEX file we generated for this test. It was not exported from an Evernote account. This tests Joplin’s handling of that small format fixture, not every part of an Evernote migration.

What the 23 September trial checked

Synthetic PNG attachment showing a cream rectangle and white circle on a blue background.
The synthetic attachment whose bytes survived the import and export.

A small repair checklist

If colour carries meaning in your notes, replace it with explicit text labels before relying on Markdown. Check internal links after export, especially when notes share a title. Keep the original ENEX archive and test a representative notebook with attachments before moving a larger collection.

Inspect the original evidence

Method and limits

In the original trial, a research agent used Joplin Terminal 3.7.1 with two isolated empty profiles on Windows and Node 24.1.0. No account, cloud sync or personal notebook was used. Import, Markdown export, JEX export and JEX re-import completed. The output files were inspected independently.

The 3 October extension used the same application version and input with two new isolated profiles. Both imports and exports completed. File-content checks confirmed the table above. No Obsidian trial or visual comparison of desktop editors was performed.

Joplin’s official Windows installation instructions use WSL. This test used native Windows shell mode, so it does not establish a supported Windows installation or test the desktop interface. It is not a performance benchmark or a guarantee of lossless migration.

OCR, encrypted notes, notebook stacks, reminders, duplicate titles, large attachments and complete account export were not tested. The observed internal-link result covers one unambiguous target only.

See Joplin’s official import and export guide and terminal documentation for the supported workflows.

Read Evernote vs Joplin or see Joplin’s sourced profile.

After choosing an import route, use the Joplin sync options guide to separate local notes, storage services and a Cloud subscription.