head to head · open source

Uptime Kuma vs airframe

Uptime Kuma has 91,498 GitHub stars, 8,431 forks, 805 open issues and last shipped yesterday. airframe has 666 stars, 67 forks, 105 open issues and last shipped 15 days ago. Uptime Kuma leads on adoption by 13,638% (91,498 vs 666 stars). Uptime Kuma is written in JavaScript under MIT; airframe is written in Scala under Apache-2.0. Uptime Kuma has attracted 9% as many forks as stars, airframe 10%. 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 airframe ★ 666 category Infrastructure & Operations

← all 13541 open source comparisons

Side by side

Uptime Kuma airframe
GitHub stars ★ 91K ★ 666
License MIT Apache-2.0
Written in JavaScript Scala
Last push 2026-09-18 2026-09-04
Forks ⑂ 8.4K ⑂ 67
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 airframe if

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

full airframe 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 airframe

Airframe is a collection of essential building blocks for Scala applications — logging, JSON and MessagePack serialization, dependency injection, an HTTP server and client with RPC support, and the AirSpec testing framework — aimed at Scala developers building services and libraries.

read the full airframe 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 prometheus uptime-kuma vs openvpn uptime-kuma vs wr-do uptime-kuma vs plakar uptime-kuma vs pluton n8n vs huginn worldmonitor vs netdata worldmonitor vs grafana netdata vs grafana n8n vs kestra langchain vs haystack llama-index vs haystack compose vs conductor compose vs xxl-job langgraph vs haystack compose vs gitleaks trivy vs gitleaks supabase vs nocodb mall vs prometheus mall vs nocodb supabase vs postgrest

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 Apache SkyWalking Uptime Kuma vs jaeger Uptime Kuma vs Vector

Frequently asked questions

Is Uptime Kuma or airframe more popular?

Uptime Kuma has 91,498 GitHub stars and airframe has 666. Uptime Kuma has the larger community by that measure.

Are Uptime Kuma and airframe free?

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

What is the difference between Uptime Kuma and airframe?

Uptime Kuma is written in JavaScript and airframe in Scala. 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 airframe?

Choose Uptime Kuma if you want the larger community (91,498 stars) or its MIT licence terms. Choose airframe if its feature set, stack or Apache-2.0 licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.