head to head · open source

Uptime Kuma vs auto-cpufreq

Uptime Kuma has 91,498 GitHub stars, 8,431 forks, 805 open issues and last shipped today. auto-cpufreq has 7,760 stars, 356 forks, 79 open issues and last shipped 6 days ago. Uptime Kuma leads on adoption by 1,079% (91,498 vs 7,760 stars). Uptime Kuma is written in JavaScript under MIT; auto-cpufreq is written in Python under GPL-3.0. Uptime Kuma has attracted 9% as many forks as stars, auto-cpufreq 5%. 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 auto-cpufreq ★ 7.8K category Infrastructure & Operations

← all 8884 open source comparisons

Side by side

Uptime Kuma auto-cpufreq
GitHub stars ★ 91K ★ 7.8K
License MIT GPL-3.0
Written in JavaScript Python
Last push 2026-09-18 2026-09-12
Forks ⑂ 8.4K ⑂ 356
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 auto-cpufreq if

  • You want the auto-cpufreq feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the GPL-3.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches Python
  • You evaluated both and auto-cpufreq fits your workflow better

full auto-cpufreq 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 auto-cpufreq

auto cpufreq is a GPL 3.0 Python daemon and command line tool that watches a Linux laptop's battery state, CPU usage, CPU temperature, and system load, then adjusts CPU frequency and power settings automatically for users who want longer battery life without giving up responsiveness.

read the full auto-cpufreq 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 Apache SkyWalking Uptime Kuma vs jaeger Uptime Kuma vs Vector

Frequently asked questions

Is Uptime Kuma or auto-cpufreq more popular?

Uptime Kuma has 91,498 GitHub stars and auto-cpufreq has 7,760. Uptime Kuma has the larger community by that measure.

Are Uptime Kuma and auto-cpufreq free?

Both are open source. Uptime Kuma is licensed under MIT and auto-cpufreq under GPL-3.0. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between Uptime Kuma and auto-cpufreq?

Uptime Kuma is written in JavaScript and auto-cpufreq in Python. 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 auto-cpufreq?

Choose Uptime Kuma if you want the larger community (91,498 stars) or its MIT licence terms. Choose auto-cpufreq if its feature set, stack or GPL-3.0 licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.