They both provide many great features, but Bike provides some unique features too. I think they are pretty well listed on Bike's home page (features), but I'll add some notes here:

1. "Fluid" (smoothly animated) editing. You could argue it's not important, but this is something new and unique to Bike. Bike is a "tool for thought". I think how the app feels is an important aspect.

2. macOS native app, of course this is a plus and minus. But if you are on a Mac Bike will generally us a lot less resources then those apps and integrate better with the rest of the system.

3. Local files in open formats. Logseq has this of Course, but I think there's something pretty nice about having your outline just be simple HTML. Easy to parse, easy to work with, should be able to view and make sense of as long as web's around.

4. Faster. Bike is designed to work on somewhat big outlines. Moby Dick has been my test file. It opens instantly. I've just pasted that into Logseq and my computer is working hard a few minutes later. Not sure how workflowy does because it puts me over quotas.

Bike has a pretty unique foundation compared to other outliner apps. It's also missing a lot of higher level features that I plan to build out over time.

I honestly don't understand comments like this, you know it's ok to competition in this space?

As the post title says, it's a macOS native app, focusing on fluidity.

I've looked at (and discarded) Workflowy before. I hadn't heard of Logseq before, so thank you for that.

However, I am looking at it now, and while it's a nice little app, it's not an outliner and I am not sure if I am going to be able to find any use for it.

Outliners are explained here: http://outliners.scripting.com/

Why are you comparing Logseq to one?

I'm in Dynalist camp!