MapGIS vs QGIS and PostGIS: a Colombia comparison
What an organization is actually comparing between the MapGIS suite and an architecture with QGIS, PostGIS, services and open viewers. A layer, cost and workflow matrix.
Short answer: MapGIS, QGIS and PostGIS are not equivalent products. H&G’s current MapGIS suite brings together maps, indicators, dashboards, reports and web or mobile modules. QGIS is a GIS for cartography, editing, forms and analysis. PostGIS extends PostgreSQL to store, index and query spatial data. Comparing MapGIS only with QGIS or PostGIS leaves applications, services, security, support and operations out of scope.
The useful comparison is MapGIS against a complete architecture, assessed workflow by workflow. That architecture may combine QGIS, PostGIS, APIs, OGC services, MapLibre or other components, but open-source software does not guarantee lower cost, better architecture or functional equivalence by itself.
GeoSAT is an independent consultancy and is not affiliated with, sponsored by or endorsed by H&G Consultores. MapGIS belongs to its respective owner. Capabilities attributed to MapGIS are public vendor statements; a specific installation may use a different version, modules, customizations and integrations.
MapGIS vs QGIS: the mistake of treating them as the same thing
An organization can open QGIS, edit a layer and conclude that it has “replaced MapGIS.” It can also install PostGIS and declare that its GIS is “open.” Neither conclusion is sufficient.
QGIS is strong desktop GIS. PostGIS provides persistence and spatial operations. An institutional platform may also require:
- web and mobile viewers;
- authentication, roles and audit;
- forms and business rules;
- services and integrations with other systems;
- reports, dashboards and exports;
- multi-user editing and quality control;
- offline work or field capture;
- monitoring, backups, recovery, support and SLA.
A MapGIS alternative is therefore not a download. It is a designed, operated and user-accepted system.
Layer-by-layer comparison
| Layer or need | MapGIS | QGIS | PostGIS | Complete open architecture |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Web and mobile access | The suite publishes web, mobile and specialized-module capabilities | Not a web platform by itself | No user interface | Requires a defined viewer, frontend and services |
| Cartography and editing | Depends on installed version, modules and integration | A core capability with editing, forms, print and analysis | Preserves and validates data but does not design maps | QGIS can be the desktop connected to shared data and services |
| Spatial database | The location of authoritative data and dependencies must be assessed | Connects to several sources | Its primary role on PostgreSQL | PostGIS can become a data authority decoupled from the viewer |
| APIs and interoperability | H&G states compatibility and interoperability; actual contracts and scope require verification | Consumes and publishes standards through ecosystem components | Integrates with QGIS, GeoServer, MapServer, ArcGIS and other tools | APIs and services are designed as contracts independent from the interface |
| Dashboards, reports and forms | The suite states these capabilities in modules | Desktop forms, layouts, atlases and reports | Stores data and queries but does not present the workflow | Implemented with web components, BI, QGIS or other applications |
| Licensing | Depends on contract, version, modules, support and infrastructure | GPL; no per-user license fee | GPL; no per-user license fee | Still incurs design, migration, cloud, security, support and evolution costs |
| Support and accountability | May be concentrated in a vendor and contract | Community and professional providers | Community and professional providers | The organization must define ownership, SLA and continuity across components |
The table does not declare a universal winner. It explains why the decision belongs at architecture and operations level.
When to retain or upgrade MapGIS
Retaining may be the best decision when critical workflows work, the version and its components are supported, total cost is justified and the organization can recover operations after a failure.
Upgrading with the vendor may be preferable when a documented path reduces dependencies, retains valuable customizations and has clear acceptance criteria. The MapGIS 5, 9 and 10 evidence review explains why current architecture should not be inferred from a historical version.
Minimum questions include:
- Which version and modules are actually in production?
- Where does authoritative data live and who controls its schema?
- Which APIs, services, runtimes and SDKs support each workflow?
- Which code and configurations belong to the organization?
- How are security, backup, recovery and performance tested?
- Which recurring costs would disappear and which would remain?
When to decouple with QGIS and PostGIS
Decoupling removes dependencies in layers without immediately shutting down a useful application. A program can begin by moving authoritative data to PostgreSQL/PostGIS, documenting schemas, publishing APIs and services, and connecting QGIS for editing or analysis. The existing viewer can keep consuming those assets during transition.
The public Cornare case matters precisely because it does not prove total replacement. The organization reported databases migrated to PostgreSQL and a move from ArcGIS to QGIS while retaining and integrating MapGIS modules. It is evidence of hybrid modernization, not a universal rule.
Decoupling is attractive when:
- data must be reused by multiple applications;
- renewing an interface forces changes across too many layers;
- the organization wants tests independent from its viewer vendor;
- integrations or automation must survive a frontend change;
- migration needs to proceed in measurable stages.
When to migrate components
Migration is reasonable when the replacement component has passed tests with real data, users and integrations. We do not promise zero functional loss: equivalence is validated workflow by workflow with users, data and integrations.
An acceptance matrix should include at least:
| Workflow | Evidence before retiring the current component |
|---|---|
| Inspect a geometry | Same authorized source, required attributes, response time and permissions accepted |
| Edit and validate | Rules, concurrency, history, rejection and recovery tested |
| Print or report | Templates, scales, legends, signatures and outputs accepted |
| Share a map | Stable URL, permissions, filters, metadata and expiry defined |
| Integrate another system | API contract, errors, observability and retries documented |
| Operate in the field | Sync, conflict, offline, device and support verified |
| Recover from failure | Backup, restoration, RTO, RPO and owners rehearsed |
If a workflow lacks evidence, equivalence has not been demonstrated yet.
What does MapGIS cost compared with an open alternative?
We found no universal public price list that supports saying “MapGIS costs X.” Contracts may include different versions, modules, users, support, maintenance, infrastructure, development and integrations.
A public Medellín contract documents recurring spending on subscription, support, maintenance and an upgrade to MapGIS 9.0. It is evidence of one contractual case, not a national rate or a basis for promising savings percentages.
The correct comparison uses total cost of ownership over the same period:
Continue = licenses + support + maintenance + infrastructure + upgrades + operations
Modernize = assessment + build/migration + coexistence + infrastructure + security + support + evolution
Open software can remove per-user license fees, but it does not remove people, cloud, security, backup, testing or maintenance. The GeoSAT OpenGIS demo calculator presents preliminary scenarios and warns that actual savings may be zero or negative.
A MapGIS alternative you can actually test
The GeoSAT OpenGIS demo does not attempt to reproduce a MapGIS installation. It demonstrates separable capabilities with open data and visible provenance:
- national catalogue and IGAC cadastral queries;
- volcanic hazard, buildings and historical events in Cumbal;
- UPRA coffee suitability in Calarcá;
- corridor 45A04 and bridges published by INVÍAS;
- filters, inspection, measurement, shareable URL and GeoJSON export.
Each operational case has its own page with a decision question, snapshot metrics, sources and limits. This makes it possible to evaluate evidence before discussing a complete platform.
Recommended decision
Do not begin by selecting a brand. Begin by inventorying workflows, data, integrations, contracts and risks. Then assign every component to one of four paths:
- Retain when it meets requirements and cost is justified.
- Upgrade when the path reduces risk with verifiable acceptance.
- Decouple when data, APIs or rules must survive the viewer.
- Migrate when the replacement has passed complete tests.
GeoSAT’s MapGIS modernization assessment produces a technical inventory, dependency map, portability matrix, total-cost scenarios and a path with acceptance criteria.
Frequently asked questions
Does QGIS replace MapGIS?
Not by itself. QGIS can replace desktop, editing, cartography and analysis workflows. A web platform additionally needs data, services, applications, identity, permissions, operations and support.
Does PostGIS replace MapGIS?
No. PostGIS is a spatial data and analysis layer on PostgreSQL. It can decouple and centralize information, but it does not provide a suite’s web or mobile experience by itself.
Does GeoSAT claim that MapGIS is obsolete?
No. H&G maintains an active suite and has published current capabilities. A specific version or dependency may require modernization, but that can only be established by assessing the real installation.
Does an open architecture guarantee savings?
No. It can remove some costs and create others. The result depends on scope, coexistence, infrastructure, security, support, team and rate of change.
How is functional loss avoided?
Zero loss is not promised. Acceptance criteria are defined and every workflow is tested with users, data and integrations before the previous component is retired.