Shaarli 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?
Shaarli
Personal, minimalist link-sharing bookmark app
VS
Wallabag
Self-hosted read-it-later application
| Feature | Shaarli | Wallabag |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Bookmarks & Read-It-Later | Bookmarks & Read-It-Later |
| License | GPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Language | PHP | PHP |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 128 MB | 512 MB |
| Deployment | docker, bare-metal | docker, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 3,888 | ★ 12,884 |
| First released | 2013 | 2013 |
| Replaces | Pocket, Delicious | Pocket, Instapaper |
Why pick each one
Choose Wallabag if…
- Great read-it-later experience
- Own your reading list
- Apps available
Frequently asked questions
Is Shaarli or Wallabag better?
Neither is universally better. Wallabag 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 Shaarli and Wallabag free and open-source?
Yes. Shaarli is licensed under GPL-3.0 and Wallabag under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Shaarli and Wallabag with Docker?
Shaarli: yes. Wallabag: yes.