Archivy 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.
Wallabag
Self-hosted read-it-later application
| Feature | Archivy | Wallabag |
|---|---|---|
| Deploy effort | Under-an-hour setup | Under-an-hour setup |
| Health score | 19 · At risk | 86 · Excellent |
| Category | Bookmarks & Read-It-Later | Bookmarks & Read-It-Later |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Language | Python | PHP |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, bare-metal, source | docker, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 3,277 | ★ 12,983 |
| First released | 2020 | 2013 |
| Replaces | Pocket, Evernote | Pocket, Instapaper |
What are Archivy and Wallabag?
Archivy
Archivy is a self-hostable knowledge repository that lets you preserve useful web pages and notes so they are accessible and searchable offline. Saved bookmarks have their full content archived and indexed for full-text search.
- Full content archiving
- Offline searchable
- Markdown notes
- Extensible plugins
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
Archivy vs Wallabag: key differences
Archivy is written in Python, while Wallabag is built with PHP. Archivy is the lighter option, starting around 256 MB of RAM against 512 MB for Wallabag. Wallabag is the more established project (first released 2013), while Archivy arrived in 2020. Wallabag has the considerably larger community, at 12,983 GitHub stars versus 3,277.
Why pick each one
Choose Archivy if…
- Released under the MIT license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Active community (3.3k GitHub stars)
- Written in Python
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 Archivy or Wallabag better?
Neither is universally better. Wallabag has the larger community; both share a medium setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Archivy and Wallabag free and open-source?
Yes. Archivy is licensed under MIT and Wallabag under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Archivy and Wallabag with Docker?
Archivy: yes. Wallabag: yes.
Which is lighter on resources, Archivy or Wallabag?
Archivy has the smaller minimum footprint at 256 MB of RAM, compared to about 512 MB for Wallabag. Real-world usage depends on library size, user count, and enabled features.