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.
Not the right match-up?
Wallabag
Self-hosted read-it-later application
VS
Omnivore
Read-it-later app with highlights and newsletter support
| Feature | Wallabag | Omnivore |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Bookmarks & Read-It-Later | Bookmarks & Read-It-Later |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Language | PHP | TypeScript |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 512 MB | 1,024 MB |
| Deployment | docker, bare-metal | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 12,884 | ★ 16,211 |
| First released | 2013 | 2022 |
| Replaces | Pocket, Instapaper | Pocket, Instapaper |
Why pick each one
Choose Wallabag if…
- Great read-it-later experience
- Own your reading list
- Apps available
Choose Omnivore if…
- Released under the AGPL-3.0 license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 16.2k GitHub stars
- Written in TypeScript
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.