vs
kml
GeoJSON vs KML: which map format to use?
A clear, practical comparison with a straight answer.
Choose GeoJSON for web maps, APIs and modern GIS tooling, where its JSON structure is a natural fit. Choose KML when you are working in Google Earth or Google Maps, or when you need its built-in styling and 3D camera features.
Both formats describe the same thing, geographic features like points, lines and polygons, but they come from different worlds. GeoJSON is lean JSON built for the web; KML is richer XML tied to Google Earth.
If your map lives in a browser or an API, GeoJSON slots straight in. If it lives in Google Earth or needs built-in styling and camera views, KML was made for that.
.geojson vs .kml at a glance
| .geojson | .kml | |
|---|---|---|
| Underlying syntax | JSON | XML |
| Built-in styling | No, styling is separate | Yes, colours and icons |
| Web map support | Excellent, native | Possible, less direct |
| Google Earth | Convert first | Native format |
| File size | Compact | More verbose |
| Best for | Web maps and APIs | Google Earth and rich styling |
Frequently asked questions
Can I convert KML to GeoJSON?
Yes. Tools like QGIS and many online converters translate between them, since both describe the same kinds of geographic features.
Which format do web maps prefer?
GeoJSON. Libraries such as Leaflet and Mapbox read it directly, while KML usually needs conversion or a plugin.