Learn how OpenStatus and Uptime Kuma 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 .

Auto-fetched .

Uptime Kuma appears to have several advantages over OpenStatus, particularly in popularity, maturity and licensing. Consider your specific needs regarding popularity, activity, technology, maturity, licensing and features when making your decision.
Uptime Kuma significantly outpaces OpenStatus in community adoption with 87,076 stars compared to 8,692 stars on GitHub. This 10.0x difference suggests Uptime Kuma has a much larger and more active community. In terms of developer contributions, Uptime Kuma has 7,881 forks, indicating strong developer engagement.
Both projects show recent activity, with OpenStatus last updated 1 day ago and Uptime Kuma 14 hours ago.
Both tools share common technology foundations, being built with JavaScript, Bash, Typescript, Golang. However, they differ in their additional technology choices: OpenStatus uses CSS, JSX, Next.js while Uptime Kuma leverages Python, SCSS, PHP, Vue, Java, C#.
Uptime Kuma has been in development longer, starting 5 years ago, compared to OpenStatus which began 3 years ago. This 2.0-year head start suggests Uptime Kuma may have more mature features and established processes.
Uptime Kuma uses the MIT license, which is more permissive than OpenStatus's AGPL-3.0 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: Uptime Kuma extends into Infrastructure Monitoring.
Both OpenStatus 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