ArchiveBox vs Shaarli
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted bookmarks & read-it-later options — 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
Shaarli
Personal, minimalist link-sharing bookmark app
| Feature | ArchiveBox | Shaarli |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Bookmarks & Read-It-Later | Bookmarks & Read-It-Later |
| License | MIT | GPL-3.0 |
| Language | Python | PHP |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 1,024 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | docker, bare-metal | docker, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 28,079 | ★ 3,888 |
| First released | 2017 | 2013 |
| Replaces | Pocket, Delicious |
Why pick each one
Choose ArchiveBox if…
- Thorough page preservation
- Imports from many sources
- Open formats
Frequently asked questions
Is ArchiveBox or Shaarli better?
Neither is universally better. ArchiveBox has the larger community, while Shaarli is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are ArchiveBox and Shaarli free and open-source?
Yes. ArchiveBox is licensed under MIT and Shaarli under GPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run ArchiveBox and Shaarli with Docker?
ArchiveBox: yes. Shaarli: yes.