SigNoz vs Uptime Kuma
Is it time to switch? We break down the differences so you can stop bleeding money.
Choose Uptime Kuma.
If you want to own your data, save money, and avoid vendor lock-in, Uptime Kuma is more popular among developers.
What Actually Matters
No fluff — just the differences that affect your decision
Both are open source under MIT. No lock-in on either side — pick based on fit, not fear.
Both can run on your own metal with Docker. Full data ownership, no cloud dependency. We have deploy guides for each.
Uptime Kuma has the bigger crowd: 92.4k stars vs 32.4k. More contributors, more integrations, more momentum.
SigNoz is built in TypeScript, Uptime Kuma in JavaScript. Matters if you want to contribute, extend, or debug internals.
Try both — most offer free tiers. The right pick depends on your stack size, team, and tolerance for DevOps.
SigNoz
Open source observability platform. SigNoz helps developers monitor applications and troubleshoot problems.
Why Choose SigNoz
- ✓Unified metrics, traces, and logs in a single platform
- ✓OpenTelemetry native — no proprietary agents required
- ✓ClickHouse-powered for fast queries at scale
Drawbacks
- ×High resource usage (ClickHouse)
Uptime Kuma
A fancy self-hosted monitoring tool.
Why Choose Uptime Kuma
- ✓Beautiful, real-time monitoring dashboard
- ✓Multi-protocol support: HTTP, TCP, DNS, Docker, and more
- ✓Notification integrations with 90+ services including Slack, Discord, and Telegram
Drawbacks
- ×Self-hosted only (usually)
Related Comparisons
Explore alternatives for other tools in Monitoring
