ArchiveBox vs Winds
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted apps from related categories — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
ArchiveBox
Self-hosted web archiving from bookmarks and feeds
VS
Winds
Beautiful open-source RSS and podcast application
| Feature | ArchiveBox | Winds |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Bookmarks & Read-It-Later | RSS & News Readers |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | Python | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 1,024 MB | 1,024 MB |
| Deployment | docker, bare-metal | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 28,079 | ★ 9,115 |
| First released | 2017 | 2017 |
| Replaces | Feedly |
Why pick each one
Choose ArchiveBox if…
- Thorough page preservation
- Imports from many sources
- Open formats
Choose Winds if…
- Released under the MIT license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 9.1k GitHub stars
- Written in JavaScript
Frequently asked questions
Is ArchiveBox or Winds better?
ArchiveBox is the stronger all-round pick: it has both the larger community and the simpler medium setup. Consider Winds if its specific feature set fits your needs better.
Are ArchiveBox and Winds free and open-source?
Yes. ArchiveBox is licensed under MIT and Winds under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run ArchiveBox and Winds with Docker?
ArchiveBox: yes. Winds: yes.