head to head · open source
ArchiveBox vs browserless
ArchiveBox has 28,927 GitHub stars, 1,625 forks, 157 open issues and last shipped yesterday. browserless has 1,843 stars, 93 forks, 6 open issues and last shipped yesterday. ArchiveBox leads on adoption by 1,470% (28,927 vs 1,843 stars). ArchiveBox is written in Python under MIT; browserless is written in JavaScript under MIT. ArchiveBox has attracted 6% as many forks as stars, browserless 5%. ArchiveBox was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee. The two share 1 topic tag (chromium), so they are genuine substitutes rather than adjacent tools.
Two open source projects, one decision. Both are free and self-hostable — the differences are community size, license terms, language stack and release pace.
← all 20902 open source comparisons
Side by side
| ArchiveBox | browserless | |
|---|---|---|
| GitHub stars | ★ 29K | ★ 1.8K |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Written in | Python | JavaScript |
| Last push | 2026-11-02 | 2026-11-02 |
| Forks | ⑂ 1.6K | ⑂ 93 |
| Self-hosting | Yes | Yes |
| Data ownership | Your server | Your server |
pick ArchiveBox if
- You weight community size — 29K stars and counting
- You want the MIT license terms
- Your stack matches Python
- You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance
pick browserless if
- You want the browserless feature set and don't need the biggest community
- You prefer the MIT license terms
- Your stack matches JavaScript
- You evaluated both and browserless fits your workflow better
About ArchiveBox
ArchiveBox Open source self hosted web archiving. ▶️ Quickstart Demo GitHub Documentation Info & Motivation Community ArchiveBox is a self hosted app that lets you preserve content from websites in a variety of formats. We aim to make your data immediately useful, and kept in formats that other programs can read directly. As output, we save standard HTML, PNG, PDF, TXT, JSON, WARC, SQLite, all guaranteed to be readable for decades to come. ArchiveBox also has a CLI, REST API, and webhooks so you can set up integrations with other services. Without active preservation effort, everything on the internet eventually…
read the full ArchiveBox overview →
About browserless
The headless Chrome/Chromium driver on top of Puppeteer. Highlights Installation Usage The cloud API solution CLI Initializing a browser .constructor(options) .createContext(options) .browser() .respawn() .close() Built in .html(url, options) .text(url, options) .pdf(url, options) .screenshot(url, options) .destroyContext(options) .getDevice(options) .evaluate(fn, gotoOpts) .goto(page, options) .context() [.withPage(fn, \[options\])]( withpagefn options) [.page(\[name\])]( pagename) Extended ai function lighthouse screencast Packages FAQ License Highlights Compatible with Puppeteer API (text, screenshot, html…
read the full browserless overview →
More in Data & Analytics
Related comparisons
More Data Extraction & Web Scraping projects
Compare either of these against the rest of the Data Extraction & Web Scraping field.
Frequently asked questions
Is ArchiveBox or browserless more popular?
ArchiveBox has 28,927 GitHub stars and browserless has 1,843. ArchiveBox has the larger community by that measure.
Are ArchiveBox and browserless free?
Both are open source. ArchiveBox is licensed under MIT and browserless under MIT. Neither carries a licence fee.
What is the difference between ArchiveBox and browserless?
ArchiveBox is written in Python and browserless in JavaScript. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.
Which should I choose, ArchiveBox or browserless?
Choose ArchiveBox if you want the larger community (28,927 stars) or its MIT licence terms. Choose browserless if its feature set, stack or MIT licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.