head to head · open source
Uptime Kuma vs pyroscope
Uptime Kuma has 93,190 GitHub stars, 8,655 forks, 805 open issues and last shipped yesterday. pyroscope has 11,710 stars, 833 forks, 400 open issues and last shipped yesterday. Uptime Kuma leads on adoption by 696% (93,190 vs 11,710 stars). Uptime Kuma is written in JavaScript under MIT; pyroscope is written in Go under AGPL-3.0. Uptime Kuma has attracted 9% as many forks as stars, pyroscope 7%. pyroscope 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.
← all 20902 open source comparisons
Side by side
| Uptime Kuma | pyroscope | |
|---|---|---|
| GitHub stars | ★ 93K | ★ 12K |
| License | MIT | AGPL-3.0 |
| Written in | JavaScript | Go |
| Last push | 2026-11-02 | 2026-11-02 |
| Forks | ⑂ 8.7K | ⑂ 833 |
| Self-hosting | Yes | Yes |
| Data ownership | Your server | Your server |
pick Uptime Kuma if
- You weight community size — 93K stars and counting
- You want the MIT license terms
- Your stack matches JavaScript
- You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance
pick pyroscope if
- You want the pyroscope 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 pyroscope fits your workflow better
About Uptime Kuma
Uptime Kuma Uptime Kuma is an easy to use self hosted monitoring tool. 🥔 Live Demo Try it! Demo Server (Location: Frankfurt Germany): It is a temporary live demo, all data will be deleted after 10 minutes. Sponsored by Uptime Kuma Sponsors. ⭐ Features Monitoring uptime for HTTP(s) / TCP / HTTP(s) Keyword / HTTP(s) Json Query / Websocket / Ping / DNS Record / Push / Steam Game Server / Docker Containers Fancy, Reactive, Fast UI/UX Notifications via Telegram, Discord, Gotify, Slack, Pushover, Email (SMTP), and 90+ notification services, click here for the full list 20 second intervals Multi Languages Multiple…
read the full Uptime Kuma overview →
About pyroscope
🎉 Announcement: Pyroscope 2.0 is here! Pyroscope 2.0 makes the new v2 architecture the default. Profiles are written directly to object storage, removing the need for in memory ingesters and local disks simplifying operations and lowering resource usage at scale. Existing v1 deployments can opt in via a flag and migrate without data loss. Read the 2.0 release notes and the v2 architecture overview. Upgrading from v1? See the migration guide. Want the full story? Watch the GrafanaCON 2026 talk Pyroscope 2.0: Continuous Profiling Architecture Deep Dive . What is Grafana Pyroscope? Grafana Pyroscope is a…
read the full pyroscope overview →
More in Infrastructure & Operations
Related comparisons
More Monitoring & Observability projects
Compare either of these against the rest of the Monitoring & Observability field.
Frequently asked questions
Is Uptime Kuma or pyroscope more popular?
Uptime Kuma has 93,190 GitHub stars and pyroscope has 11,710. Uptime Kuma has the larger community by that measure.
Are Uptime Kuma and pyroscope free?
Both are open source. Uptime Kuma is licensed under MIT and pyroscope under AGPL-3.0. Neither carries a licence fee.
What is the difference between Uptime Kuma and pyroscope?
Uptime Kuma is written in JavaScript and pyroscope 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 pyroscope?
Choose Uptime Kuma if you want the larger community (93,190 stars) or its MIT licence terms. Choose pyroscope if its feature set, stack or AGPL-3.0 licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.