Wallabag vs Omnivore
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
VS
Omnivore
Read-it-later app with highlights and newsletter support
| Feature | Wallabag | Omnivore |
|---|---|---|
| Deploy effort | Under-an-hour setup | Under-an-hour setup |
| Health score | 86 · Excellent | 95 · Excellent |
| Category | Bookmarks & Read-It-Later | Bookmarks & Read-It-Later |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | PHP | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 1,024 MB |
| Deployment | docker, bare-metal | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 12,983 | ★ 16,257 |
| First released | 2013 | 2022 |
| Replaces | Pocket, Instapaper | Pocket, Instapaper |
What are Wallabag and Omnivore?
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
Omnivore
Omnivore is an open-source read-it-later application that saves articles for distraction-free reading. It supports highlights, notes, full-text search, and forwarding newsletters to your library.
- Distraction-free reading
- Highlights and notes
- Newsletter inbox support
Wallabag vs Omnivore: key differences
Wallabag is written in PHP, while Omnivore is built with JavaScript. Licensing differs — MIT for Wallabag versus AGPL-3.0 for Omnivore. Wallabag is the lighter option, starting around 512 MB of RAM against 1,024 MB for Omnivore. Wallabag is the more established project (first released 2013), while Omnivore arrived in 2022.
Why pick each one
Choose Wallabag if…
- Great read-it-later experience
- Own your reading list
- Apps available
Watch out for
- Requires a database
- Article parsing occasionally fails
Choose Omnivore if…
- Newsletter inbox support
- Highlights and notes
- Full-text search
Watch out for
- Complex microservice deployment
- Development has stalled
Frequently asked questions
Is Wallabag or Omnivore better?
Neither is universally better. Omnivore has the larger community, while Wallabag is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Wallabag and Omnivore free and open-source?
Yes. Wallabag is licensed under MIT and Omnivore under AGPL-3.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Wallabag and Omnivore with Docker?
Wallabag: yes. Omnivore: yes.
Which is lighter on resources, Wallabag or Omnivore?
Wallabag has the smaller minimum footprint at 512 MB of RAM, compared to about 1,024 MB for Omnivore. Real-world usage depends on library size, user count, and enabled features.