Learn how Cachet and Healthchecks differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these uptime monitoring tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
6 days agoRepository age
12 yearsVersion
v2.4.1Self-hosted
YesRepository
cachethq/cachet
Last 30 days
Last commit
10 hours agoRepository age
11 yearsVersion
v5.0.3License
BSD-3-ClauseSelf-hosted
YesRepository
healthchecks
Healthchecks appears to have several advantages over Cachet, particularly in growth and licensing. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Both tools have similar popularity levels, with Cachet having 15,262 stars and Healthchecks having 10,506 stars on GitHub. In terms of developer contributions, Cachet has 1,630 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Healthchecks is growing faster, adding 102 stars in the last 30 days (+1%) against adding 8 stars for Cachet (+0.1%). Healthchecks is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Cachet last updated 6 days ago and Healthchecks 10 hours ago.
Cachet uses PHP, Laravel while Healthchecks leverages Bash, Python.
Both projects started around the same time, with Cachet beginning 12 years ago and Healthchecks 11 years ago.
Healthchecks is licensed under BSD-3-Clause, while Cachet's license terms are not publicly specified.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Uptime Monitoring. However, they also have distinct specializations: Cachet also focuses on Status Pages while Healthchecks extends into Job Scheduling.
Both Cachet and Healthchecks offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs