Learn how Healthchecks and OneUptime 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

Both Healthchecks and OneUptime have their unique strengths and serve similar purposes effectively. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, growth, activity, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Both tools have similar popularity levels, with Healthchecks having 10,262 stars and OneUptime having 7,481 stars on GitHub. In terms of developer contributions, Healthchecks has 998 forks, indicating moderate developer engagement.
OneUptime is growing faster, adding 167 stars in the last 30 days (+2.3%) against adding 26 stars for Healthchecks (+0.3%). OneUptime is the smaller project of the two, so it is closing the gap rather than extending a lead.
Both projects show recent activity, with Healthchecks last updated 13 hours ago and OneUptime 8 hours ago.
Healthchecks has been in development longer, starting 11 years ago, compared to OneUptime which began 5 years ago. This 6.1-year head start suggests Healthchecks may have more mature features and established processes.
Healthchecks uses the BSD-3-Clause 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 Uptime Monitoring. However, they also have distinct specializations: Healthchecks also focuses on Job Scheduling while OneUptime extends into Performance Monitoring (APM), Status Pages.
Both Healthchecks 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