head to head · open source

Uptime Kuma vs gf

Uptime Kuma has 91,477 GitHub stars, 8,426 forks, 805 open issues and last shipped yesterday. gf has 13,272 stars, 1,719 forks, 148 open issues and last shipped yesterday. Uptime Kuma leads on adoption by 589% (91,477 vs 13,272 stars). Uptime Kuma is written in JavaScript under MIT; gf is written in Go under MIT. Uptime Kuma has attracted 9% as many forks as stars, gf 13%. 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 gf ★ 13K category Infrastructure & Operations

← all 8884 open source comparisons

Side by side

Uptime Kuma gf
GitHub stars ★ 91K ★ 13K
License MIT MIT
Written in JavaScript Go
Last push 2026-09-17 2026-09-17
Forks ⑂ 8.4K ⑂ 1.7K
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 gf if

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

full gf 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 gf

GoFrame is an MIT licensed, production ready application framework for the Go programming language that provides a full stack toolkit — HTTP server, ORM, logging, tracing, and command line scaffolding — in a single dependency, aimed at Go teams that want one coherent framework instead of assembling many separate libraries.

read the full gf 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 gf more popular?

Uptime Kuma has 91,477 GitHub stars and gf has 13,272. Uptime Kuma has the larger community by that measure.

Are Uptime Kuma and gf free?

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

What is the difference between Uptime Kuma and gf?

Uptime Kuma is written in JavaScript and gf in Go. 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 gf?

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