Learn how Cachet and Peekaping 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
5 days agoRepository age
1 yearVersion
0.1.0License
MITSelf-hosted
YesRepository
0xfurai/peekaping
Both Cachet and Peekaping have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Cachet significantly outpaces Peekaping in community adoption with 15,262 stars compared to 1,216 stars on GitHub. This 12.6x difference suggests Cachet has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Cachet has 1,630 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Peekaping is growing faster, adding 13 stars in the last 30 days (+1.1%) against adding 8 stars for Cachet (+0.1%). Peekaping 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 Peekaping 5 days ago.
Cachet uses PHP, Laravel while Peekaping leverages JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Typescript, JSX, Golang.
Cachet has been in development longer, starting 12 years ago, compared to Peekaping which began 1 year ago. This 10.7-year head start suggests Cachet may have more mature features and established processes.
Peekaping is licensed under MIT, while Cachet's license terms are not publicly specified.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Uptime Monitoring, Status Pages. However, they also have distinct specializations: Peekaping extends into Infrastructure Monitoring.
Both Cachet and Peekaping 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
vs