Learn how Readeck and Wallabag differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these read-it-later & knowledge hubs is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Self-hosted
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Wallabag appears to have several advantages over Readeck, particularly in popularity, maturity and licensing. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Wallabag significantly outpaces Readeck in community adoption with 12,958 stars compared to 1,103 stars on GitHub. This 11.7x difference suggests Wallabag has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Wallabag has 895 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Readeck is growing faster, adding 37 stars in the last 30 days (+3.5%) against adding 70 stars for Wallabag (+0.5%). Readeck is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Readeck last updated 2 days ago and Wallabag 2 days ago.
Wallabag has been in development longer, starting 13 years ago, compared to Readeck which began 5 years ago. This 8.1-year head start suggests Wallabag may have more mature features and established processes.
Wallabag is licensed under MIT, while Readeck's license terms are not publicly specified.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Read-it-Later & Knowledge Hubs. However, they also have distinct specializations: Wallabag extends into Bookmark Managers.
Both Readeck and Wallabag offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.