SigNoz vs Uptime Kuma
| Tagline | Open-source APM and observability for metrics, traces, and logs in one app | Fancy self-hosted uptime monitoring with a beautiful dashboard and status pages |
| Category | Monitoring & Status Pages | Monitoring & Status Pages |
| Replaces | Datadog | UptimeRobot, Pingdom, Statuspage |
| GitHub stars | 32k | 91k |
| Language | TypeScript | JavaScript |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Self-host difficulty | 3/5 Moderate | 2/5 Simple |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose Kubernetes Manual | Docker Docker Compose Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | 9 days ago | 6 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.
SigNoz
- Runs a heavier stack (ClickHouse + OTel collector + multiple services), needing more resources than lightweight monitors
- Some advanced features and SSO are reserved for the cloud/enterprise tier
- No public status page or simple uptime checks like UptimeRobot
- Younger ecosystem than Datadog; fewer turnkey integrations
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