ArchiveBox vs Figranium
ArchiveBox and Figranium are both browser automation software. ArchiveBox is open source under MIT, with 29k GitHub stars. Figranium is open source under GPL-3.0, with 784 GitHub stars.
Which to pick
- Pick ArchiveBox when
- You want your own lasting copies of web pages, for research, legal evidence or bookmarks, rather than relying on the Wayback Machine.
- Pick Figranium when
- Non-developers on your team need to set up repeatable browser tasks or scrapes without writing Playwright code.
Side by side
A self-hosted web archiver that takes URLs, bookmarks, browser history or feeds and saves each page as HTML, PDF, screenshot, WARC and media files, with a web UI, CLI and API.
A self-hosted app for building browser automations from visual blocks such as click, type and wait, then running them on a schedule or through an HTTP API with screenshots and recordings kept.
Version 0.9 is still pre-1.0 and upgrades have had breaking changes, and archiving many pages with Chromium uses a lot of disk and CPU.
It is under a year old, GPL-3.0, and its sponsor list of residential proxy sellers shows it leans toward scraping.
Usable
Experimental
Self-hosted server and command line
Self-hosted server
Python, Django, Chromium, wget and SQLite
TypeScript, React, Express, PostgreSQL and Playwright
Open source, MIT (permissive)
Open source, GPL-3.0 (strong copyleft)
You can build it into a product you sell, as long as you keep its copyright notice.
Use inside your business is unrestricted, but anything you distribute that includes it must be released under the same license.
29k GitHub stars
784 GitHub stars
Established: started 9 years ago, latest release v0.9.77.
Young: started 10 months ago, latest release v0.22.0.
Other comparisons
More browser automation tools and headless browsers
Both sides were judged on 2026-11-06 from each project's README and GitHub data. License, age and popularity lines are worked out directly.