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 | 90k |
| Language | TypeScript | JavaScript |
| License | MIT | MIT |
| Self-host difficulty | 3/5 Moderate | 2/5 Easy |
| Deploy options | Docker Docker Compose Kubernetes Manual | Docker Docker Compose Manual |
| Managed hosting | ||
| Last updated | today | today |
| 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. 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