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
11 days agoRepository age
1 yearVersion
v0.3.2License
MITSelf-hosted
YesRepository
easymonitor
Last 30 days
Last commit
13 hours agoRepository age
5 yearsVersion
2.5.9License
MITSelf-hosted
YesRepository
louislam/uptime-kuma
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 93,364 stars compared to 86 stars on GitHub. This 1085.6x 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.
Both projects show recent activity, with EasyMonitor last updated 11 days ago and Uptime Kuma 13 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, Java, Vue, C#.
Uptime Kuma has been in development longer, starting 5 years ago, compared to EasyMonitor which began 1 year 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
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs
vs