Both apps do the same basic job: you give them a web address, and they download the site so you can open it on your Mac without a connection. Both are native Mac apps, both are one-time purchases, and both can sign in to a site before copying it. The difference is in how they deal with modern websites, and in what you get at the end.
Short version: if the sites you copy are mostly ordinary pages (blogs, documentation, older sites), SiteSucker is the cheaper choice and does it well. If they are built with React, Next.js, Vue or a site builder that assembles pages in the browser, SiteMirror was designed for that, and its $19 licence (JavaScript rendering isn’t in the free plan) is worth trying on one of your sites. Neither app copies every site perfectly, and SiteMirror doesn’t get past paywalls, CAPTCHAs or bot detection.
At a glance
| Oxid SiteMirror | SiteSucker | |
|---|---|---|
| Price | Free for plain sites up to 500 pages; $19 one-time for everything | $5.99 on the Mac App Store; a separate Pro version adds video downloads |
| Requires | macOS 14 or later, Apple silicon or Intel | macOS 14 or later, universal |
| Sites built with JavaScript | With a licence: renders each page in a real browser engine and records every response the page loads, so client-side navigation can keep working offline; some sites still come out incomplete | Ignores JavaScript by default; an optional web-view mode loads each page in a hidden WebKit view and saves the resulting HTML |
| Signing in first | With a licence: you log in in a browser window, and the capture reuses that session | Yes, through its built-in browser |
| Avoiding logout and delete links | Links whose address looks like sign-out, unsubscribe or a delete action are skipped automatically | The manual asks you to exclude them yourself |
| How you open the copy | Live Mirror (served from your Mac to your own browser) or plain files | Plain files with rewritten links |
| Export | Static Snapshot folder; ZIP and a deploy-ready copy with clean URLs with a licence | Plain files; PDF in web-view mode |
| Recapture later | With a licence; unchanged files are stored once | Re-download |
| Command line | sitemirror tool included; serving and folder exports are free, captures need a licence | No |
| Video downloads (YouTube, Vimeo embeds) | No | SiteSucker Pro |
Where they really differ: JavaScript sites
A growing share of the web is built with frameworks that send the browser a nearly empty page and a bundle of JavaScript, which then builds the page and fetches more code and data as you move around. A downloader that saves only the HTML it receives gets that empty shell. SiteSucker’s own documentation says it “totally ignores JavaScript” in its normal mode, and that pages built with JavaScript may not display or link correctly.
SiteSucker does have an answer: its optional web-view mode loads each page in a hidden WebKit view and saves the HTML after the page has run, which suits pages that are fully built once they load. How far that goes for single-page apps (client-side navigation, data fetched as you click) depends on the site, and we haven’t tested SiteSucker’s web-view mode ourselves, so if your sites are like that, try both on one of them.
SiteMirror takes a different route, with a licence (the free plan copies plain HTTP only). It renders each page in a Chromium engine (your installed Chrome, Edge, Brave or Chromium, or a separate copy it downloads) and records every response the page loads while it loads, scrolls and hydrates. It also recognises framework pages that look complete but will rebuild themselves in the browser, and renders those too. When you open the copy as a Live Mirror, those recorded responses are served back from your Mac, so the site’s own JavaScript runs against them and client-side routing can keep working. In our own test of 55 real sites (October 2026, the start page plus up to 12 linked pages each), the Live Mirror passed on 38, was partly complete on 12, failed on 4, and one site’s robots.txt blocked the capture. Framework sites such as react.dev, Linear, Vercel, Tailwind’s docs and Svelte’s site came out matching the live pages; nextjs.org and vuejs.org were only partly complete, and angular.dev failed in the Live Mirror.
So it isn’t a guarantee for every site. Pages that change on every load, embedded third-party video and very heavy sites can come out incomplete. SiteMirror respects robots.txt by default, so a site that blocks crawlers captures nothing, and it doesn’t get past paywalls, CAPTCHAs or bot detection. Anything that needs a live server, such as search across an API, checkout, or content that changes per visitor, can’t work in any offline copy.
What you get at the end
SiteSucker gives you a folder of files with links rewritten so they point at each other. That’s simple, portable and easy to understand.
SiteMirror keeps each capture in a single .sitemirror project and gives you two ways to open it:
- Live Mirror opens the copy in your normal browser, served from your Mac. JavaScript sites can behave as they did online, though not every one does.
- Static Snapshot writes a folder you can open from Finder or host anywhere. With a licence you can also export it as a ZIP or as a deploy-ready variant with clean URLs.
The approach behind Live Mirror (serving a recorded copy through a service worker) isn’t unique to us; archivists’ tools like ReplayWeb.page use the same idea. What SiteMirror adds is doing the capture and the replay in one Mac app, without WARC files or a separate viewer.
Price
SiteSucker is cheaper: $5.99 against $19, and that matters if the sites you copy are ordinary ones. SiteMirror’s free plan captures plain HTTP (no JavaScript rendering), up to 500 pages per capture, with the Live Mirror and Static Snapshot folders, and has no time limit. Note that the free plan won’t show you how it handles a JavaScript site, which is the main reason to buy it. The $19 licence adds JavaScript rendering, unlimited pages, signing in, recapturing, ZIP and deploy-ready exports, and captures from the command line. One licence covers one Mac.
Which should you choose?
- Choose SiteSucker if you mostly copy traditional websites, want the lowest price, or need to grab embedded videos (Pro).
- Choose SiteMirror if the sites you care about are built with JavaScript frameworks or site builders, if you want the copy to keep behaving like the original where that’s possible, or if you need recaptures, ZIP exports or command-line captures. Try it on the site you actually need before relying on it.
Whichever you use, copy only sites you own or have permission to copy.
Questions
Does SiteSucker work with JavaScript sites?
SiteSucker ignores JavaScript by default, so pages built with it may not display or link correctly. Its optional web-view mode loads each page in a hidden WebKit view and saves the resulting HTML. We haven't tested that mode ourselves, so try it on your own site.
Is there a SiteSucker alternative for JavaScript sites?
Oxid SiteMirror, with its $19 licence, renders each page in a Chromium engine and records every response, so a Live Mirror can keep client-side navigation working. In our test of 55 sites it passed on 38, was partly complete on 12 and failed on 4; one site's robots.txt blocked it.
Is SiteSucker cheaper than SiteMirror?
Yes. SiteSucker is $5.99 on the Mac App Store, against $19 one-time for SiteMirror. If you mostly copy ordinary sites such as blogs and documentation, SiteSucker is the cheaper choice and does it well. SiteMirror's free plan covers plain sites up to 500 pages, without JavaScript rendering.
Can SiteMirror download embedded YouTube or Vimeo videos?
No. SiteMirror doesn't download embedded videos; SiteSucker Pro, a separate version of SiteSucker, does.
How do I download a website for offline use on a Mac?
Give a website downloader such as SiteSucker or SiteMirror the web address. SiteSucker saves a folder of files with rewritten links; SiteMirror opens the copy as a Live Mirror served from your Mac or writes a Static Snapshot folder. Copy only sites you own or have permission to copy.