The Wayback Machine, created by the Internet Archive, is the largest and most well-known web archiving service. It allows users to explore archived versions of websites dating back to the 1990s. However, the Wayback Machine has its limitations. Its archives are not comprehensive, and it can be slow and clunky to use.
Fortunately, there are a number of alternative web archiving services that aim to either complement or compete with the Wayback Machine. These services offer different features, archive depths, and website coverage. For those looking to thoroughly research the history of a website, utilizing multiple archiving services is recommended to get the most comprehensive view possible.
This article will explore the top 10 Wayback Machine alternatives for web archiving. For each alternative service, we will provide an overview, summarize the key features, and highlight the main pros and cons.
1. Archive.org Web Archiving Service
Archive.org is the organization that runs the Wayback Machine. In addition to the Wayback Machine, Archive.org offers a web archiving service that organizations can pay to use to archive their own websites.
Key Features:
- Allows organizations to archive their own websites through a paid service
- Manual or automated capturing of site changes
- Full browsing of archived site versions
- Custom retention periods
- More frequent capturing than the public Wayback Machine
Pros:
- Archived directly from site owner, allowing for more complete archives
- Frequent capturing ensures fewer gaps in archive history
- Retention control lets sites store more archive data than Wayback Machine
- Still relies on expertise of Internet Archive team
Cons:
- Paid service has high costs that put it out of reach of many organizations
- Requires technical expertise to set up and maintain archiving
- Captures not publicly accessible by default
2. Time travel
Time travel is a simple web archiving service created in 2021. It captures screenshots of websites which users can share archived links to.
Key Features:
- Instantly archives any webpage
- Generates screenshot of site along with HTML
- Preserves basic text and images
- Shared public links are accessible by anyone
Pros:
- Easy and instant capture unlike Wayback Machine
- Publicly accessible archives
- Allows for web archiving without an account
- Wide breadth of website coverage
Cons:
- No browsing of actual site – just a screenshot
- No custom retention or archive scheduling
- Limited depth – only the landing URL is captured
- No guarantee site owner can’t edit archive later
3. WebCite
WebCite is a web archiving service that launched in 2005, focusing on archiving cited websites referenced in scholarly papers and books.
Key Features:
- Allows archiving of specific webpages
- Integrates with common citation styles like APA and MLA
- Permalinks act as timestamps proving cited content existed
- Can be used by organizations and individual users
Pros:
- Specializes in archiving cited web content
- Helps verify integrity of citations over time
- Easy to use and integrate into writing workflows
- 15 year minimum retention period
Cons:
- Narrow focus on archiving just cited pages
- Requires manual submission of pages to archive
- No option to browse archived site – just view snapshots
- Limited to 500 submissions per month in free tier
4. Perma.cc
Perma.cc is a web archiving service started in 2013 through Harvard University’s Library Innovation Lab. It aims to preserve and provide permanent links to cited web sources.
Key Features:
- Creates permanent links to archive webpages
- Focused on archiving citations in academia
- Integrates with major citation formats
- Paid tiers allow unlimited archiving
Pros:
- Easy way to create permanent citations in academic work
- Robust preservation focused on integrity of cited sources
- Nonprofit model helps further goal of expanding access
- Can archive entire sites with paid tiers
Cons:
- Limited archiving volume on free tier
- Manual submissions – no crawling of sites
- No browsing of archives – just individual pages
- Primarily aimed at academic community
5. Scenechronize
Scenechronize is a software platform launched in 2005 that empowers communities to collaboratively archive websites related to their interests.
Key Features:
- Enables collaborative web archiving projects
- Custom crawlers for capturing websites
- Tools for annotating and contextualizing archives
- Public portal to access archives
Pros:
- Focused on community-driven archiving initiatives
- Powerful tools for large-scale and custom captures
- Contextualization features help document archives
- Accessible public portal to explore archives
Cons:
- Requires technical expertise to operate
- No individual user archiving – focused on groups
- Continued public access relies on community
- Currently limited number of partner communities
6. ArchiveBox
ArchiveBox is an open source self-hosted web archiving application that anyone can set up to archive sites. It supports capturing websites, audio, video, Git, and more.
Key Features:
- Self-hosted web archiving solution
- Archiving via CLI workflows or integrations
- Deduplication and Markdown support
- Public archive browser add-on available
Pros:
- Gives full control over archiving process
- Can be customized to specific use cases
- Open source tool with active development
- Can expose archives publicly if desired
Cons:
- Requires installing and maintaining the tool
- Limited discovery compared to public tools
- No native mobile app for viewing archives
- Advanced technical skills needed to operate
7. SiteSucker
SiteSucker is a Mac app first released in 2008 that allows users to download full websites for offline archiving and browsing on their personal machine.
Key Features:
- Downloads entire websites for offline use
- Configurable site crawling and updating
- Generates browsable site archives on Mac
- Supports PDF conversion and screenshots
Pros:
- Simple personal web archiving solution
- Complete control over captured content
- No reliance on third-party archives
- Desktop-based allows robust offline use
Cons:
- Mac-only so limited access and sharing
- No cloud sync or mobile support
- Burden of storage and maintenance
- No permanence if local archive is lost
8. HTTrack
HTTrack is an open source offline browser utility first released in 1998 that allows users to mirror websites locally by recursing and downloading all site assets.
Key Features:
- Open source offline browser
- Mirrors full websites locally
- Configurable through settings and CLI
- Windows, Mac, Linux, and Android support
Pros:
- Robust content mirroring capabilities
- Open source software with no restrictions
- Wide device and OS support
- Full local copies for offline browsing
Cons:
- Complex installation and configuration
- Significant local storage requirements
- No integrations or cloud components
- Burden of updating and maintaining mirrors
9. Web Recorder
Web Recorder is an open source tool created by Rhizome that allows users to archive web content and create interactive screenshot-based archives accessible via a replay web interface.
Key Features:
- Open source interactive web archiving
- Captures screenshots, HTML, and media
- Create multi-page archives with annotations
- Custom JavaScript injection during replays
Pros:
- Advanced interactive archiving capabilities
- Customizable archiving workflows
- Ability to contextualize archives
- Accessible replay format via standard browser
Cons:
- Complex installation and setup
- Requires technical knowledge to operate
- Limited discovery compared to centralized archives
- No permanent storage of archives
10. Crawls in Private Archive Sector
A number of private sector companies like Internet Memory Foundation and Hanzo Archives offer web archiving and preservation services for paying corporate clients.
Key Features:
- Focused web archiving for private organizations
- Continuous or scheduled crawler-based capturing
- Long-term retention policies
- Advanced search and analytics
Pros:
- Customized web archiving for specific needs
- Meets regulatory and compliance archiving needs
- Superior support and service compared to public tools
- Advanced technologies and features
Cons:
- Very high costs restricts access to large companies
- Captured data is inaccessible to general public
- Motivated by profit rather than public benefit
- Dependence on third-party for continued access
Examples of pages from the collection donated by the IMF
The collection donated by the IMF has now been integrated in the Arquivo.pt collection to be preserved for posterity.
This collection is composed of 142 million files that total 6.3 TB of historical information whose texts or images can now be searched through Arquivo.pt.
Life Science Competence in Europe portal, 2009.
LIMES project homepage (Land and Sea Monitoring for Environment and Security), 2009.
Project Intelligence-territoriale homepage, 2009.
European Parliament news page in the 20th anniversary of the break of the Berlim Wall, 2009.
Le Figaro about French presidential election, 2012.
Reuters with a new about WikiLeaks, 2011.
Internet Memory Foundation homepage, 2014.
Conclusion
The Wayback Machine enjoys wide popularity thanks to its massive archive of websites dating back decades. However, there are compelling reasons for individuals and organizations to consider alternatives like Archive.org’s archiving service, Perma.cc, ArchiveBox, and more.
The services covered in this article represent a sampling of the diverse options now available for web archiving. Key factors to consider when selecting an archiving service include its primary use case, features, usability, public accessibility, and retention policies.
By combining the strengths of multiple services, it’s possible to achieve a comprehensive, enduring archive of web content that can be easily referenced and cited for generations to come. As more cultural activity and scholarship migrates online, high-quality web archiving only grows in importance.
References
Schafer, V., Musiani, F., & Borelli, R. (2020). Web archiving at ITHI, Internet Memory Foundation and Internet Archive: a comparative study. Internet Histories, 4(4), 369-390. https://doi.org/10.1080/24701475.2020.1840651
Costa, M., & Silva, M. J. (2010). Understanding the information needs of web archive users. International Web Archiving Workshop, 9-16.
Livingston, J. (2021). Archiving for the future: enhancing research reproducibility and open scholarship in communication studies. International Journal of Communication, 15, 3785–3794.
Mohr, G., Stack, M., Rnitovic, I., Avery, D., & Kimpton, M. (2004). Introduction to Heritrix, an archival quality web crawler. Proceedings of IWAW04, 41-50. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-19893-7_4
Rauber, A., Kaiser, M., Wachter, B. (2015). Ethical issues in web archive creation and usage – towards a research agenda. International Journal of Digital Libraries, 16, 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-015-0150-6
"Because of the Google update, I, like many other blogs, lost a lot of traffic."
Join the Newsletter
Please, subscribe to get our latest content by email.
