head to head · open source

Uptime Kuma vs bottom

Uptime Kuma has 91,477 GitHub stars, 8,426 forks, 805 open issues and last shipped yesterday. bottom has 14,032 stars, 385 forks, 103 open issues and last shipped yesterday. Uptime Kuma leads on adoption by 552% (91,477 vs 14,032 stars). Uptime Kuma is written in JavaScript under MIT; bottom is written in Rust under MIT. Uptime Kuma has attracted 9% as many forks as stars, bottom 3%. Uptime Kuma was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee. The two share 1 topic tag (monitoring), so they are genuine substitutes rather than adjacent tools.

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 bottom ★ 14K category Infrastructure & Operations

← all 8884 open source comparisons

Side by side

Uptime Kuma bottom
GitHub stars ★ 91K ★ 14K
License MIT MIT
Written in JavaScript Rust
Last push 2026-09-17 2026-09-17
Forks ⑂ 8.4K ⑂ 385
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 bottom if

  • You want the bottom feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the MIT license terms
  • Your stack matches Rust
  • You evaluated both and bottom fits your workflow better

full bottom 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 bottom

bottom is a customizable cross platform graphical process and system monitor that runs inside the terminal, written in Rust and aimed at developers, system administrators, and anyone who wants an interactive view of CPU, memory, network, disk, and process activity without leaving the shell.

read the full bottom 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 bottom more popular?

Uptime Kuma has 91,477 GitHub stars and bottom has 14,032. Uptime Kuma has the larger community by that measure.

Are Uptime Kuma and bottom free?

Both are open source. Uptime Kuma is licensed under MIT and bottom under MIT. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between Uptime Kuma and bottom?

Uptime Kuma is written in JavaScript and bottom in Rust. 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 bottom?

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