head to head · open source

Uptime Kuma vs monoscope

Uptime Kuma has 91,477 GitHub stars, 8,426 forks, 805 open issues and last shipped yesterday. monoscope has 1,801 stars, 73 forks, 32 open issues and last shipped yesterday. Uptime Kuma leads on adoption by 4,979% (91,477 vs 1,801 stars). Uptime Kuma is written in JavaScript under MIT; monoscope is written in Haskell under AGPL-3.0. Uptime Kuma has attracted 9% as many forks as stars, monoscope 4%. Uptime Kuma was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee. The two share 2 topic tags (monitoring, self-hosted), 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 monoscope ★ 1.8K category Infrastructure & Operations

← all 8884 open source comparisons

Side by side

Uptime Kuma monoscope
GitHub stars ★ 91K ★ 1.8K
License MIT AGPL-3.0
Written in JavaScript Haskell
Last push 2026-09-17 2026-09-17
Forks ⑂ 8.4K ⑂ 73
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 monoscope if

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

full monoscope 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 monoscope

Monoscope is an open source observability platform written in Haskell and licensed under AGPL 3.0. It ingests and explores logs, traces, and metrics, and stores telemetry in S3 compatible buckets. It supports OpenTelemetry ingestion and can be used as a self hosted or cloud service.

read the full monoscope 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 monoscope more popular?

Uptime Kuma has 91,477 GitHub stars and monoscope has 1,801. Uptime Kuma has the larger community by that measure.

Are Uptime Kuma and monoscope free?

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

What is the difference between Uptime Kuma and monoscope?

Uptime Kuma is written in JavaScript and monoscope in Haskell. 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 monoscope?

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