Uptime Kuma Alternative
Open-source uptime monitoring. Learn how openstatus compares to Uptime Kuma.
Openstatus and Uptime Kuma are both open-source uptime monitoring tools, making this a comparison between two projects with shared values but different architectures. The fundamental difference is the hosting model: Uptime Kuma is self-hosted only — you run it on your own server and it monitors from that single location. Openstatus is available both as a managed SaaS and for self-hosting, and checks from 28 regions worldwide.
If you want zero infrastructure responsibility and global multi-region checks, openstatus is the natural choice. If you want a completely free, self-managed tool with full control and no external dependencies, Uptime Kuma is a solid option.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | openstatus | Uptime Kuma |
|---|---|---|
| Open-source | + | + |
| Self-hosted or cloud-based | both | self-hosted only |
| Multi-cloud | 3 cloud providers | single server |
| Multi-region (global) | 28 regions | 1 (your server location) |
| OTel Export | + | - |
| GitHub Action | + | - |
| Team members | unlimited | unlimited |
| Managed SaaS option | + | - |
| Monitoring as code | + | - |
When to Choose openstatus
- You want managed SaaS with no infrastructure to maintain
- You need 28-region global monitoring from multiple cloud providers
- You want monitoring as code via YAML and GitHub Actions
- You need OpenTelemetry export or a tightly integrated status page
- You want to talk to the founders directly (bootstrapped, small team)
When to Choose Uptime Kuma
- You want completely free monitoring with no usage limits
- You are comfortable running your own server
- You need monitoring behind a firewall with no external SaaS dependency
- You prefer a single-location check from your own infrastructure