head to head · open source

Uptime Kuma vs Gigapipe

Uptime Kuma has 91,477 GitHub stars, 8,426 forks, 805 open issues and last shipped yesterday. Gigapipe has 1,706 stars, 102 forks, 16 open issues and last shipped yesterday. Uptime Kuma leads on adoption by 5,262% (91,477 vs 1,706 stars). Uptime Kuma is written in JavaScript under MIT; Gigapipe is written in Go under AGPL-3.0. Uptime Kuma has attracted 9% as many forks as stars, Gigapipe 6%. 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 Gigapipe ★ 1.7K category Infrastructure & Operations

← all 8884 open source comparisons

Side by side

Uptime Kuma Gigapipe
GitHub stars ★ 91K ★ 1.7K
License MIT AGPL-3.0
Written in JavaScript Go
Last push 2026-09-17 2026-09-17
Forks ⑂ 8.4K ⑂ 102
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 Gigapipe if

  • You want the Gigapipe feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the AGPL-3.0 license terms
  • Your stack matches Go
  • You evaluated both and Gigapipe fits your workflow better

full Gigapipe 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 Gigapipe

Gigapipe is an open source observability warehouse written in Go under the AGPL 3.0 license. The project, formerly known as qryn, combines logs, metrics, traces, and profiling in one stack, and it presents itself as a lightweight, cloud native, drop in alternative to Grafana LGTMP.

read the full Gigapipe 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 Gigapipe more popular?

Uptime Kuma has 91,477 GitHub stars and Gigapipe has 1,706. Uptime Kuma has the larger community by that measure.

Are Uptime Kuma and Gigapipe free?

Both are open source. Uptime Kuma is licensed under MIT and Gigapipe under AGPL-3.0. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between Uptime Kuma and Gigapipe?

Uptime Kuma is written in JavaScript and Gigapipe 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 Gigapipe?

Choose Uptime Kuma if you want the larger community (91,477 stars) or its MIT licence terms. Choose Gigapipe if its feature set, stack or AGPL-3.0 licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.