What is the main difference between Cachet and Uptime Kuma?

Cachet and Uptime Kuma are both status pages but differ in their approach, features, and target audience. Compare their GitHub stats, technology stack, and community adoption to make the best choice.

Which is better: Cachet or Uptime Kuma?

The choice between Cachet and Uptime Kuma depends on your specific needs, technical requirements, and team preferences. Both are quality open source solutions with active communities.

Can I migrate from Cachet to Uptime Kuma?

Migration between Cachet and Uptime Kuma is possible but requires careful planning. Consider data export/import capabilities, feature parity, and potential workflow changes.

Logto – Modern auth infrastructure for developers.

Learn More

Learn more

Cachet vs Uptime Kuma

Learn how Cachet and Uptime Kuma differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these status pages is best for you.

Cachet

Open-source status page platform that helps organizations communicate system status and incidents effectively with customizable components and metrics tracking

Visit Cachet Read more

Stars
15,023
Forks
1,613
Last commit
2 days ago
Repository age
11 years
Self-hosted
Yes

View Repository

Auto-fetched 38 minutes ago.

Uptime Kuma

A user-friendly, open-source uptime monitoring solution for tracking website and service availability

Visit Uptime Kuma Read more

Stars
86,121
Forks
7,756
Last commit
6 hours ago
Repository age
5 years
License
MIT
Self-hosted
Yes

View Repository

Auto-fetched 38 minutes ago.

Detailed Comparison

Both Cachet and Uptime Kuma have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.

Uptime Kuma wins

Community & Popularity

Uptime Kuma significantly outpaces Cachet in community adoption with 86,121 stars compared to 15,023 stars on GitHub. This 5.7x difference suggests Uptime Kuma has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Uptime Kuma has 7,756 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.

Comparable

Development Activity

Both projects show recent activity, with Cachet last updated 2 days ago and Uptime Kuma 6 hours ago.

Comparable

Technology Stack

Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with PHP. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Cachet uses Laravel while Uptime Kuma leverages JavaScript, Bash, Typescript, Python, SCSS, Golang, Vue, Java, C#.

Cachet wins

Project Maturity

Cachet has been in development longer, starting 11 years ago, compared to Uptime Kuma which began 5 years ago. This 6.7-year head start suggests Cachet may have more mature features and established processes.

Uptime Kuma wins

Licensing

Uptime Kuma is licensed under MIT, while Cachet's license terms are not publicly specified.

Comparable

Use Cases & Features

Both tools serve similar use cases in Status Pages, Uptime Monitoring. However, they also have distinct specializations: Uptime Kuma extends into Infrastructure Monitoring.

Comparable