Grafana OnCall vs Uptime Kuma
| Tagline | Open-source on-call scheduling and incident alerting for engineering teams | Fancy self-hosted uptime monitoring with a beautiful dashboard and status pages |
| Category | Monitoring & Status Pages | Monitoring & Status Pages |
| Replaces | Datadog, Pingdom | UptimeRobot, Pingdom, Statuspage |
| GitHub stars | 4k | 88k |
| Language | Python | JavaScript |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | MIT |
| Self-host difficulty | 3/5 Moderate | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Docker Compose Kubernetes | Docker Docker Compose Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 1 month ago | 5 days ago |
| View repo | View repo |
Where each falls short
The honest trade-offs — what you give up with each, versus the proprietary tools they replace.
Grafana OnCall
- Requires Grafana instance for alerts; not standalone
- Mobile app push notifications require Grafana Cloud relay
- Less mature than PagerDuty for complex multi-team routing
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.
Grafana OnCall
Open-source on-call scheduling and incident alerting for engineering teams
Uptime Kuma
Fancy self-hosted uptime monitoring with a beautiful dashboard and status pages