Learn how EasyMonitor 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.
Last 30 days
Last commit
Repository age
Version
License
Self-hosted
Repository

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

Uptime Kuma appears to have several advantages over EasyMonitor, particularly in popularity and maturity. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Uptime Kuma significantly outpaces EasyMonitor in community adoption with 90,353 stars compared to 68 stars on GitHub. This 1328.7x difference suggests Uptime Kuma has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Uptime Kuma has 8,267 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Both projects show recent activity, with EasyMonitor last updated 29 days ago and Uptime Kuma 23 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, Bash, Golang, PHP. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: EasyMonitor uses CSS, Laravel while Uptime Kuma leverages Typescript, Python, SCSS, Vue, Java, C#.
Uptime Kuma has been in development longer, starting 5 years ago, compared to EasyMonitor which began 10 months ago. This 4.3-year head start suggests Uptime Kuma may have more mature features and established processes.
Both projects use the MIT license, providing identical terms for usage and distribution.
Both tools serve similar use cases in Uptime Monitoring, Status Pages. However, they also have distinct specializations: Uptime Kuma extends into Infrastructure Monitoring.
Both EasyMonitor and Uptime Kuma 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