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.
ArchiveBox
Self-hosted web archiving from bookmarks and feeds
VS
Shaarli
Personal, minimalist link-sharing bookmark app
| Feature | ArchiveBox | Shaarli |
|---|---|---|
| Deploy effort | ≈5-minute setup | Under-an-hour setup |
| Health score | 97 · Excellent | 88 · Excellent |
| 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 | ★ 28,580 | ★ 3,899 |
| First released | 2017 | 2013 |
| Replaces | Pocket, Delicious |
What are ArchiveBox and Shaarli?
ArchiveBox
ArchiveBox is a powerful self-hosted internet archiving tool that saves snapshots of webpages from URLs, bookmarks, and feeds. It targets users who want permanent, offline copies of pages. It is deployed via Docker.
- Saves HTML, PDF, screenshots and more
- Imports from many sources
- Self-hosted permanent archive
- Multiple extraction methods
Shaarli
Shaarli is a personal, minimalist, database-free bookmarking application that can also act as a microblog of links. It targets individuals wanting a lightweight link log. It is deployed via Docker or a PHP stack.
- No database, flat-file storage
- Public and private links
- Tagging and RSS feed
- Plugin support
ArchiveBox vs Shaarli: key differences
ArchiveBox is written in Python, while Shaarli is built with PHP. Licensing differs — MIT for ArchiveBox versus GPL-3.0 for Shaarli. Shaarli is the lighter option, starting around 128 MB of RAM against 1,024 MB for ArchiveBox. Shaarli is the more established project (first released 2013), while ArchiveBox arrived in 2017. ArchiveBox has the considerably larger community, at 28,580 GitHub stars versus 3,899.
Why pick each one
Choose ArchiveBox if…
- Thorough page preservation
- Imports from many sources
- Open formats
Watch out for
- Storage hungry
- Setup can be involved
Choose Shaarli if…
- Extremely lightweight
- Easy to back up
- Can be public or private
Watch out for
- Dated default theme
- Single-user only
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.
Which is lighter on resources, ArchiveBox or Shaarli?
Shaarli has the smaller minimum footprint at 128 MB of RAM, compared to about 1,024 MB for ArchiveBox. Real-world usage depends on library size, user count, and enabled features.