Learn how Checkmk and Icinga differ in their key features, development activity, technology stack and community adoption, so you can decide which of these infrastructure monitoring tools is best for you.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

Both Checkmk and Icinga 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.
Both tools have similar popularity levels, with Checkmk having 2,599 stars and Icinga having 2,241 stars on GitHub. In terms of developer contributions, Icinga has 621 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Checkmk is growing faster, adding 230 stars in the last 30 days (+9.7%) against adding 3 stars for Icinga (+0.1%). Checkmk is both larger and pulling further ahead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Checkmk last updated 16 hours ago and Icinga 3 days ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, Bash, Python, C, Objective-C, C++, C#. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: Checkmk uses CSS, Typescript, Golang, SCSS, Rust, PHP, Vue, Perl.
Icinga has been in development longer, starting 13 years ago, compared to Checkmk which began 8 years ago. This 5.6-year head start suggests Icinga may have more mature features and established processes.
The projects use different licenses: Checkmk is licensed under GPL-2.0 while Icinga uses GPL-3.0. Consider the licensing requirements when choosing for your project.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Infrastructure Monitoring.
Both Checkmk and Icinga offer self-hosting capabilities, giving you full control over your data and infrastructure.