I think all the major qualitative software programs are quite comparable in terms of the features they offer. In practice, whenever one of them offers new features, the others add similar features in their next version, in order to stay competitive.

I have used both MAX and ATLAS, and while I prefer MAX, that is primarily due to it "look and feel" rather than anything it can do that ATLAS cannot. At this point, all of them are "pushing" mixed methods, but that simply means that you can attach quantitative variables to each case, which is just as easy to do in ATLAS.

My opinion is that all the programs are equally useful for Grounded Theory, since they are all based on the same "mark and retrieve" format that was the original basis for manual coding. ATLAS did make some early and rather inappropriate claims for a relationship to GT (e.g., calling the number of times a code appears "groundedness"), but those have mostly disappeared over the years.

Do you have anything specific you want to do that might require the unique features of one program or the other?

I agree with Davids opinion. Maybe you have the chance to get ATLAS or MaxQDA from university or your institute? Sometimes they have shared licenses for students or researchers. If the two softwares are too expensive, try f4. But its not the best for GT, because there are not this much functions.

I have only recently begun using MAXQDA but have conducted grounded theory in the past by hand and it looks like this would be a good fit. Generally the program is quite intuitive and the customer service is great, plus there are useful youtube videos. 

You might also try the trial of Quirkos and see if that works for you: as David says the feel is the main difference, and Quirkos tries to be very visual. It has specific shortcuts to speed up grounded theory coding, and is roughly half the price of an academic Atlas.ti licence. Other options include Dedoose and webQDA which are subscription based...

Thank you for comments. Are helpful for my content analysis using Maxqda 12.

Hi there - a little late with a reply, but I thought I would add my opinion. I've used MAX now for about 4 years. Before committing to a platform I trialed MAX, NVivo and Atlas. I quickly eliminated NVivo in favour of MAX and Atlas. After playing around with MAX and Atlas I found that MAX made more sense to me and felt easier to use. I agree with David about MAX's interface, although I do find the ribbon-paradigm annoying!

I've recently upgraded to MAXQDA2018 with the Stats Module, hoping that I would be able to take a more extreme mixed-methods approach. I'm also using MAX on both Windows (at work) and Mac (at home) and I've not found any noticeable feature differences between the two platforms.

Hi, thanks you all for this thread! I was really helpful!

So, I followed Mareike Popp and checked f2. Their webpage seems to be quite straightforward, and they make a comparison here between MAXQDA and f2: https://www.audiotranskription.de/english/f4analyse-or-maxqda

They seem to be aiming to a more ligth programm, easy-to-use kind of thing. Here is a excerpt of their post on this comparison:

"As a “slim” program we have kept f4analyse deliberately simple and focused on essential features. This makes a beginner’s first steps in computer-aided qualitative analysis easier, particularly as the 10-page-handbook is manageable and a university license at 100 euros affordable. Up to a quantity of 50 Word text and 750 codes you can work solely with f4analyse."

I just purchased Atlast ti8 two-year student license, and I am disappointed because when I called customer service, a woman told me to leave my contact information and someone will get back with me that was Monday. Today is Wednesday, October 23, 2019. But what really shocked me was the fact that she says she had to go somewhere if you have time to answer my questions. I was so not expecting that. Aside, from this customer service follow-up, I do not find it very intuitive. Besides, all of the company is five-minute or youtube videos I've seen does not touch on the latest edition.

That is a bit of an unfortunate experience, but an exception rather than the rule. ATLAS.ti is one of the few companies where you can actually call someone instead of having to write an email. The telephone service however is only for general inquiries. If you have specific questions regarding the use of the software, it is better to write to the helpdesk - they direct you to the person that can best answer your questions (I am one of those person as product specialist, so this is how I know). If there are technical issues, your question needs to go to a developer. This is also not something I can answer. // Regarding the Grounded Theory connection David L Morgan - when ATLAS.ti was developed as part of a university research project, they had connections to A. Strauss. The professor leading the project Heiner Legewie actually translated Strauss' book into German, they visited him in San Francisco and Strauss was also in Berlin. Also Strauss tried out first versions of ATLAS.ti. I agree that terminology used in software cannot be translated 1:1 to methodological terms. See my paper: Article CAQDAS and Grounded Theory Analysis

Hi guys, may I ask what are the differences between the latest version of Maxqda and Atlast.ti ? which one is better and easier to use? I am new to these 2 software. May I get some advice, sharing, and opinion from you guys? thank you in advance.

The only way to know " which one is better and easier to use" is to try them out yourself, because such judgments are very subjective. Also, if you are just getting started with qualitative data analysis, you should compare the tutorials that each on offers.

That said, I have used them both and personally prefer MAXQDA.