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.
Not the right match-up?
Archivy
Self-hosted knowledge repository for bookmarks and notes
VS
Wallabag
Self-hosted read-it-later application
| Feature | Archivy | Wallabag |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | ★ 3,268 | ★ 12,884 |
| First released | 2020 | 2013 |
| Replaces | Pocket, Evernote | Pocket, Instapaper |
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
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.