Cachet vs Uptime Kuma
| Tagline | Open-source, self-hosted status page system for communicating incidents | Fancy self-hosted uptime monitoring with a beautiful dashboard and status pages |
| Category | Monitoring & Status Pages | Monitoring & Status Pages |
| Replaces | Statuspage | UptimeRobot, Pingdom, Statuspage |
| GitHub stars | 15k | 91k |
| Language | PHP | JavaScript |
| License | BSD-3-Clause | MIT |
| Self-host difficulty | 3/5 Moderate | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose Manual | Docker Docker Compose Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 8 days ago | yesterday |
| View repo | View repo |
Where each falls short
The honest trade-offs — what you give up with each, versus the proprietary tools they replace.
Cachet
- Status page only; it does NOT actively monitor your services (you must push incidents via API or integrate a monitor)
- No built-in synthetic checks like Pingdom/UptimeRobot
- The v3 rewrite went through long periods of slow development and reorganization
- Fewer polished integrations and subscriber-tier features than Atlassian Statuspage
Uptime Kuma
- Single-node by design; no built-in multi-region / global probe network like Pingdom or UptimeRobot Pro
- Status pages are simpler than Statuspage.io (limited custom domains UX, no subscriber-tier management, fewer branding controls)
- No SLA reporting/analytics depth or team RBAC found in commercial offerings
- Scaling to thousands of monitors can strain the single SQLite/MariaDB backend
Bottom line
Choose Uptime Kuma if you want the lower-effort setup; choose Uptime Kuma for the larger community and ecosystem. Uptime Kuma has seen more recent development. Open each guide below for deploy steps and the full feature gap.
Uptime Kuma
Fancy self-hosted uptime monitoring with a beautiful dashboard and status pages