Learn how EasyMonitor and OneUptime 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.
Auto-fetched .

Stars
Forks
Last commit
Repository age
License
Self-hosted
Auto-fetched .

Both EasyMonitor and OneUptime 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.
OneUptime significantly outpaces EasyMonitor in community adoption with 7,123 stars compared to 37 stars on GitHub. This 192.5x difference suggests OneUptime has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, OneUptime has 390 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
Both projects show recent activity, with EasyMonitor last updated 24 days ago and OneUptime 1 day ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, CSS, Bash, Golang. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: EasyMonitor uses PHP, Laravel while OneUptime leverages Typescript, JSX, Python, C#.
OneUptime has been in development longer, starting 5 years ago, compared to EasyMonitor which began 8 months ago. This 4.4-year head start suggests OneUptime may have more mature features and established processes.
EasyMonitor uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than OneUptime's Apache-2.0 license, potentially offering greater flexibility for commercial use and integration.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Status Pages, Uptime Monitoring. However, they also have distinct specializations: OneUptime extends into Performance Monitoring (APM).
Both EasyMonitor and OneUptime 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