ArchiveBoxvswallabag
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| ArchiveBox | wallabag | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 79/100 | 60/100 |
| Rank in category | #1 of 12 in Archiving & Preservation | #11 of 46 in Bookmarks & Link Sharing |
| GitHub stars | 28 895 | 775 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +315 | — |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 9 | 3 |
| Latest release | v0.9.77 · 27 Oct 2026 | 2.6.15.1 · 28 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | MIT | — |
| Main language | Python | Shell |
Which one should you pick?
ArchiveBox scores 79/100 against 60/100 for wallabag, so it is the safer default.
ArchiveBox ships more often: 9 stable releases in the past year, against 3 for wallabag.
If you want the quickest setup, ArchiveBox is easier to run; wallabag needs more configuration.
ArchiveBox is growing faster right now (+315 stars in 30 days).
ArchiveBox details →wallabag details →
Swap a project
Keep ArchiveBox, compare it with
Keep wallabag, compare it with