Pros of waybackurls

• Simpler and more focused tool, specifically for fetching URLs from the Wayback Machine
• Lightweight and easy to use with minimal dependencies
• Can be easily integrated into other tools or scripts

Cons of waybackurls

• Limited to only the Wayback Machine as a data source
• Fewer features and customization options compared to gau
• May retrieve fewer unique URLs for a given domain

Code comparison

waybackurls:

resp, err := http.Get(fmt.Sprintf("http://web.archive.org/cdx/search/cdx?url=%s/*&output=json&fl=original&collapse=urlkey", domain))

gau:

for _, source := range sources {
    urls, err := source.Fetch(ctx, domain, providers)
    if err != nil {
        return fmt.Errorf("error fetching URLs from %s: %s", source.Name(), err)
    }
    for url := range urls {
        results <- url
    }
}

Summary

waybackurls is a straightforward tool focused on retrieving URLs from the Wayback Machine, making it easy to use and integrate. However, it lacks the versatility and extensive features of gau, which can fetch URLs from multiple sources and offers more customization options. gau's code demonstrates its ability to handle multiple data sources, while waybackurls is specifically tailored for the Wayback Machine. Choose waybackurls for simplicity and quick Wayback Machine queries, or opt for gau when you need a more comprehensive URL gathering solution.

Pros of Katana

• More comprehensive crawling capabilities, including JavaScript rendering and form submission
• Faster crawling speed due to its concurrent design and Go implementation
• Extensive configuration options for customizing the crawling process

Cons of Katana

• Higher resource consumption compared to Gau
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex configuration options
• May be overkill for simple URL discovery tasks

Code Comparison

Gau usage:

gau example.com

Katana usage:

katana -u https://example.com

Both tools are designed for URL discovery, but Katana offers more advanced features and configuration options. While Gau is simpler and more straightforward to use, Katana provides a more comprehensive crawling solution at the cost of increased complexity and resource usage.

Gau is better suited for quick and lightweight URL discovery tasks, while Katana excels in scenarios requiring deep crawling, JavaScript rendering, and advanced configuration options. The choice between the two depends on the specific requirements of the project and the desired level of crawling depth and customization.

Pros of hakrawler

• Written in Go, offering potentially better performance
• Supports crawling JavaScript files for additional endpoints
• Can follow redirects and handle cookies

Cons of hakrawler

• Limited to crawling a single domain at a time
• Doesn't offer as many data sources as gau
• May require more manual configuration for complex scenarios

Code Comparison

hakrawler:

func crawl(url string, depth int) {
    if depth <= 0 {
        return
    }
    // Crawl logic here
}

gau:

func getUrls(domains []string, providers []string, client *http.Client) {
    // URL fetching logic here
}

Key Differences

• hakrawler focuses on active crawling of websites, while gau retrieves URLs from various sources without crawling
• gau can process multiple domains simultaneously, whereas hakrawler is designed for single-domain crawling
• hakrawler provides more granular control over the crawling process, including depth and JavaScript parsing

Use Cases

hakrawler is better suited for:

• In-depth exploration of a single website
• Discovering hidden endpoints in JavaScript files
• Scenarios requiring cookie handling and redirect following

gau is more appropriate for:

• Quickly gathering URLs from multiple domains
• Collecting historical URL data from various sources
• Situations where active crawling is not feasible or desired

Pros of gospider

• More comprehensive crawling capabilities, including JavaScript rendering
• Supports multiple output formats (JSON, Markdown, CSV)
• Offers more customization options for crawling behavior

Cons of gospider

• May be slower due to more extensive crawling features
• Potentially more complex to use for simple URL extraction tasks
• Requires more system resources for JavaScript rendering

Code comparison

gospider:

crawler := gospider.NewCrawler(
    gospider.WithConcurrency(10),
    gospider.WithDepth(3),
    gospider.WithJSRendering(true),
)

gau:

client := gau.NewClient()
urls, err := client.Fetch(ctx, "example.com")

gospider offers more configuration options and advanced crawling features, while gau provides a simpler interface for quick URL extraction. gospider is better suited for comprehensive web crawling tasks, whereas gau excels at rapid URL discovery from various sources.

gospider's JavaScript rendering capability allows it to discover dynamically generated content, making it more thorough but potentially slower. gau focuses on speed and simplicity, making it ideal for quick reconnaissance or when dealing with large numbers of domains.

Choose gospider for in-depth web crawling and content analysis, and gau for fast URL enumeration and initial reconnaissance tasks.