ArchiveBox vs Wallabag
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
Wallabag
Self-hosted read-it-later application
| Feature | ArchiveBox | Wallabag |
|---|---|---|
| Deploy effort | ≈5-minute setup | Under-an-hour setup |
| Health score | 97 · Excellent | 86 · Excellent |
| Category | Bookmarks & Read-It-Later | Bookmarks & Read-It-Later |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | Python | PHP |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 1,024 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, bare-metal | docker, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 28,580 | ★ 12,983 |
| First released | 2017 | 2013 |
| Replaces | Pocket, Instapaper |
What are ArchiveBox and Wallabag?
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
Wallabag
Wallabag is a self-hosted read-it-later application that saves web articles in a clean, distraction-free format for later reading. It targets readers who want to own their reading list. It is deployed via Docker or a PHP stack.
- Clean article extraction
- Tagging and annotations
- Mobile apps and extensions
- Export to ePub and PDF
ArchiveBox vs Wallabag: key differences
ArchiveBox is written in Python, while Wallabag is built with PHP. Wallabag is the lighter option, starting around 512 MB of RAM against 1,024 MB for ArchiveBox. Wallabag 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 12,983.
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 Wallabag if…
- Great read-it-later experience
- Own your reading list
- Apps available
Watch out for
- Requires a database
- Article parsing occasionally fails
Frequently asked questions
Is ArchiveBox or Wallabag better?
Neither is universally better. ArchiveBox has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are ArchiveBox and Wallabag free and open-source?
Yes. ArchiveBox is licensed under MIT and Wallabag under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run ArchiveBox and Wallabag with Docker?
ArchiveBox: yes. Wallabag: yes.
Which is lighter on resources, ArchiveBox or Wallabag?
Wallabag has the smaller minimum footprint at 512 MB of RAM, compared to about 1,024 MB for ArchiveBox. Real-world usage depends on library size, user count, and enabled features.