What is the main difference between Cachet and Uptime Kuma?

Cachet and Uptime Kuma are both uptime monitoring tools 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.

Stellar Hosted – Managed Open Source software hosting in the EU: secure, compliant, fast.

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 uptime monitoring tools 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

15,262stars+8(+0.1%)

Last 30 days

Last commit
6 days ago
Repository age
12 years
Version
v2.4.1
Self-hosted
Yes
Repository
cachethq/cachet

Uptime Kuma

Monitors websites, APIs, and services with real-time alerts, a status page, and support for dozens of notification channels. Self-hosted and Docker-friendly.

Visit Uptime Kuma Read more

93,364stars+1,098(+1.2%)

Last 30 days

Last commit
13 hours ago
Repository age
5 years
Version
2.5.9
License
MIT
Self-hosted
Yes
Repository
louislam/uptime-kuma

Detailed Comparison

Uptime Kuma appears to have several advantages over Cachet, particularly in popularity, growth and licensing. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.

Uptime Kuma wins

Community & Popularity

Uptime Kuma significantly outpaces Cachet in community adoption with 93,364 stars compared to 15,262 stars on GitHub. This 6.1x difference suggests Uptime Kuma has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Uptime Kuma has 8,677 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.

Uptime Kuma wins

Growth Momentum

Uptime Kuma is growing faster, adding 1,098 stars in the last 30 days (+1.2%) against adding 8 stars for Cachet (+0.1%). Uptime Kuma is both larger and pulling further ahead.

Comparable

Development Activity

Both projects show recent activity, with Cachet last updated 6 days ago and Uptime Kuma 13 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, Golang, SCSS, Java, Vue, C#.

Cachet wins

Project Maturity

Cachet has been in development longer, starting 12 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 Uptime Monitoring, Status Pages. However, they also have distinct specializations: Uptime Kuma extends into Infrastructure Monitoring.

Comparable