# ArchiveBox vs wallabag

> 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 | 28 896 ✓ | 776 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +316 | — |
| 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 (+316 stars in 30 days).

## Details

- [ArchiveBox](https://selfhost.directory/project/archivebox) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/archivebox.md)
- [wallabag](https://selfhost.directory/project/docker-2) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/docker-2.md)

---
Source: https://selfhost.directory/compare/archivebox-vs-docker-2