ArchiveBox vs Wallabag: Which Should You Self-Host?
Quick Verdict
ArchiveBox and Wallabag solve different problems. ArchiveBox is a web preservation tool — it saves complete snapshots of web pages (HTML, screenshots, PDFs, WARC files) so content survives even after the original goes offline. Wallabag is a read-later app — it extracts article text, strips clutter, and presents clean reading views. Pick ArchiveBox if you need to preserve web content permanently. Pick Wallabag if you need a self-hosted Pocket replacement for saving and reading articles.
Updated March 2026: Verified with latest Docker images and configurations.
Overview
ArchiveBox captures full copies of web pages using multiple archiving methods simultaneously. It saves the raw HTML, takes screenshots, generates PDFs, and creates WARC files. It’s designed for digital preservation — making sure content you care about doesn’t disappear when sites go down or pages get deleted. Built in Python/Django, active development since 2017.
Wallabag is a read-later application. It fetches articles, strips ads and navigation, and presents clean text for reading. It supports tagging, annotations, search, and has mobile apps. It replaces services like Pocket and Instapaper. Built in PHP/Symfony, active development since 2013.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | ArchiveBox | Wallabag |
|---|---|---|
| Primary purpose | Web preservation | Read-later |
| HTML archival | Full page with assets | Article text extraction |
| Screenshots | Automatic (headless Chrome) | Not available |
| PDF generation | Automatic | Not available |
| WARC archival | Yes | No |
| Git archival | Yes | No |
| Reader view | Basic | Excellent (core feature) |
| Mobile apps | Web UI only | Android, iOS, browser extensions |
| Tagging | Yes | Yes |
| Full-text search | Yes (with Sonic) | Built-in |
| Annotations | No | Yes (highlight and note) |
| RSS feed import | Yes | Yes |
| API | REST API | Full REST API |
| Browser extension | Bookmarklet | Official extensions (Firefox, Chrome) |
| Export formats | HTML, JSON, WARC | EPUB, PDF, JSON, CSV |
| Offline reading | Via archived copies | Via mobile apps |
| Multi-user | Admin only (v0.8+) | Full multi-user |
| Docker image | archivebox/archivebox:0.8.5rc52 | wallabag/wallabag:2.6.14 |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Resource usage | High (headless Chrome) | Low (~150 MB RAM) |
Archiving Approach
ArchiveBox treats every URL as something that might disappear. When you add a URL, it runs up to 10 different extractors in parallel: wget mirror, single-file HTML, screenshot, PDF, DOM dump, WARC file, git clone, media extraction, headers, and title. The result is a comprehensive archive that can be viewed even if the original site goes offline completely.
Wallabag focuses on readability. It fetches the page, runs it through a content extractor (similar to Firefox Reader View), and saves the clean article text with images. The original page layout, navigation, scripts, and ads are discarded. The goal is comfortable reading, not preservation.
The key distinction: If a website goes offline, ArchiveBox still has a pixel-perfect copy. Wallabag still has the article text, but not the full page layout or interactive elements.
Resource Usage
ArchiveBox is resource-intensive. Headless Chrome for screenshots and PDFs requires 1-2 GB RAM during archiving operations. A single URL archive can take 30-60 seconds and generate 10-50 MB of data across all formats. Storage requirements grow quickly — plan for 50-100 MB per archived URL on average.
Wallabag is lightweight. The PHP application uses ~150 MB RAM with PostgreSQL. Article storage is text-dominant — thousands of articles fit in a few hundred megabytes. Response times are fast because there’s no browser rendering.
| Resource | ArchiveBox | Wallabag |
|---|---|---|
| RAM (idle) | ~500 MB | ~150 MB |
| RAM (active) | 1-2 GB | ~200 MB |
| CPU during archiving | High (Chrome rendering) | Low (text extraction) |
| Storage per item | 10-50 MB | 0.1-1 MB |
| 1,000 items storage | ~20 GB | ~500 MB |
Use Cases
Choose ArchiveBox If…
- You want to preserve web pages exactly as they appeared
- You’re archiving content that might be deleted or changed (news articles, social media, documentation)
- You need WARC files for institutional or research archiving
- You want multiple backup formats (HTML + PDF + screenshot) for redundancy
- You’re building a personal internet archive
Choose Wallabag If…
- You want a self-hosted Pocket or Instapaper replacement
- You primarily save articles to read later on mobile
- You want clean, distraction-free reading with annotations
- You need browser extensions and mobile apps for quick saving
- You want lightweight hosting without Chrome dependencies
Can You Use Both?
Yes, and many self-hosters do. Wallabag for daily reading workflow — save articles throughout the day, read them on mobile. ArchiveBox for preservation — archive important pages, research material, or anything you want to guarantee survives long-term. They serve complementary purposes with no overlap in functionality.
Final Verdict
These tools target fundamentally different needs. ArchiveBox is about preservation — ensuring web content survives in complete form. Wallabag is about reading — saving articles for a clean, comfortable reading experience.
If you had to pick one: Wallabag replaces a paid service (Pocket at $44.99/year) and fits into a daily workflow. ArchiveBox fills a niche that no mainstream service covers well. Most self-hosters who care about both reading and preservation will eventually run both.
Related
Get self-hosting tips in your inbox
Get the Docker Compose configs, hardware picks, and setup shortcuts we don't put in articles. Weekly. No spam.
Comments