head to head · open source

Uptime Kuma vs Apache SkyWalking

Uptime Kuma has 91,477 GitHub stars, 8,426 forks, 805 open issues and last shipped yesterday. Apache SkyWalking has 24,955 stars, 6,634 forks, 41 open issues and last shipped yesterday. Uptime Kuma leads on adoption by 267% (91,477 vs 24,955 stars). Uptime Kuma is written in JavaScript under MIT; Apache SkyWalking is written in Java under Apache-2.0. Uptime Kuma has attracted 9% as many forks as stars, Apache SkyWalking 27%. Uptime Kuma was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee.

Two open source projects, one decision. Both are free and self-hostable — the differences are community size, license terms, language stack and release pace.

Uptime Kuma ★ 91K Apache SkyWalking ★ 25K category Infrastructure & Operations

← all 8884 open source comparisons

Side by side

Uptime Kuma Apache SkyWalking
GitHub stars ★ 91K ★ 25K
License MIT Apache-2.0
Written in JavaScript Java
Last push 2026-09-17 2026-09-17
Forks ⑂ 8.4K ⑂ 6.6K
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick Uptime Kuma if

  • You weight community size — 91K stars and counting
  • You want the MIT license terms
  • Your stack matches JavaScript
  • You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance

full Uptime Kuma profile →

pick Apache SkyWalking if

  • You want the Apache SkyWalking feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the Apache-2.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches Java
  • You evaluated both and Apache SkyWalking fits your workflow better

full Apache SkyWalking profile →

About Uptime Kuma

Uptime Kuma is a free, MIT licensed, self hosted monitoring tool with a reactive web dashboard, built for operators and teams that want to watch their own HTTP, TCP, and DNS endpoints and keep the resulting data on their own infrastructure.

read the full Uptime Kuma overview →

About Apache SkyWalking

Apache SkyWalking is an open source application performance monitoring (APM) system for distributed systems in cloud native architectures, built for teams that run microservices across Kubernetes and container based environments.

read the full Apache SkyWalking overview →

More in Infrastructure & Operations

Immich ★ 114K worldmonitor ★ 87K mall ★ 85K NetData ★ 81K Elasticsearch ★ 78K Grafana ★ 77K

Related comparisons

uptime-kuma vs worldmonitor uptime-kuma vs netdata uptime-kuma vs grafana uptime-kuma vs huginn uptime-kuma vs openvpn uptime-kuma vs wr-do uptime-kuma vs plakar uptime-kuma vs pluton worldmonitor vs netdata worldmonitor vs grafana netdata vs grafana worldmonitor vs huginn immich vs paperless-ngx immich vs ceph immich vs filestash immich vs garage immich vs storj immich vs alarik immich vs spinifex paperless-ngx vs ceph mall vs prometheus mall vs nocodb mall vs etcd mall vs dbeaver

More Monitoring & Observability projects

Compare either of these against the rest of the Monitoring & Observability field.

Uptime Kuma vs worldmonitor Uptime Kuma vs NetData Uptime Kuma vs Grafana Uptime Kuma vs huginn Uptime Kuma vs Sentry Uptime Kuma vs SigNoz Uptime Kuma vs Grafana Loki Uptime Kuma vs beszel Uptime Kuma vs cilium Uptime Kuma vs jaeger Uptime Kuma vs Vector Uptime Kuma vs witr

Frequently asked questions

Is Uptime Kuma or Apache SkyWalking more popular?

Uptime Kuma has 91,477 GitHub stars and Apache SkyWalking has 24,955. Uptime Kuma has the larger community by that measure.

Are Uptime Kuma and Apache SkyWalking free?

Both are open source. Uptime Kuma is licensed under MIT and Apache SkyWalking under Apache-2.0. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between Uptime Kuma and Apache SkyWalking?

Uptime Kuma is written in JavaScript and Apache SkyWalking in Java. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.

Which should I choose, Uptime Kuma or Apache SkyWalking?

Choose Uptime Kuma if you want the larger community (91,477 stars) or its MIT licence terms. Choose Apache SkyWalking if its feature set, stack or Apache-2.0 licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.