Choosing Uptime Monitoring Tools is mostly a reliability tradeoff: you want status pages, alerts, and incident visibility without adopting a project that has gone quiet.
The ranking is limited to open/source-visible tools and sorted by ToolVitals score first, with GitHub stars used only as a secondary popularity signal when scores are tied. License and openness are treated conservatively: labels such as OSI-approved OSS and license values such as MIT, AGPL-3.0, BSD-3-Clause, GPL-2.0, GPL-3.0, and Apache-2.0 are reported as supplied.
Rankings
| Rank | Tool | Openness | License | Health | Shipping | GitHub Stars | Score | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Uptimekit | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 87 | 95 | 73 | 91 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 2 | Uptime Kuma | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 91 | 81 | 89000 | 90 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 3 | Checkmate | OSI-approved OSS | AGPL-3.0 | 87 | 90 | 10169 | 90 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 4 | Maintenant | OSI-approved OSS | AGPL-3.0 | 81 | 93 | 382 | 90 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 5 | Kuvasz | OSI-approved OSS | AGPL-3.0 | 83 | 75 | 568 | 84 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 6 | Kener | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 80 | 76 | 5042 | 83 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 7 | Healthchecks | OSI-approved OSS | BSD-3-Clause | 77 | 64 | 10152 | 78 | 🟢 Good |
| 8 | Yet Another Status Page | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 63 | 53 | 25 | 68 | 🟢 Good |
| 9 | ohstatus | OSI-approved OSS | GPL-2.0 | 62 | 63 | 1 | 68 | 🟢 Good |
| 10 | Arki Uptime | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 62 | 63 | 0 | 68 | 🟢 Good |
| 11 | Harbour Space Status | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 59 | 61 | 0 | 67 | 🟢 Good |
| 12 | Telegai Status | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 59 | 63 | 0 | 67 | 🟢 Good |
| 13 | Fettle | OSI-approved OSS | Apache-2.0 | 59 | 63 | 0 | 66 | 🟢 Good |
| 14 | Uptimer | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 65 | 42 | 475 | 63 | 🟢 Good |
| 15 | StackPatrol | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 54 | 46 | 1 | 63 | 🟢 Good |
| 16 | Uni Status | OSI-approved OSS | AGPL-3.0 | 62 | 30 | 4 | 60 | 🟢 Good |
| 17 | UptimeMonitor Server | OSI-approved OSS | GPL-3.0 | 53 | 24 | 64 | 55 | 🟡 Fair |
| 18 | OpsKnight | OSI-approved OSS | Apache-2.0 | 60 | 13 | 19 | 54 | 🟡 Fair |
| 19 | Lunalytics | OSI-approved OSS | AGPL-3.0 | 49 | 20 | 0 | 52 | 🟡 Fair |
| 20 | STS | OSI-approved OSS | Apache-2.0 | 54 | 32 | 0 | 52 | 🟡 Fair |
| 21 | Stremio Status | OSI-approved OSS | GPL-3.0 | 51 | 16 | 65 | 51 | 🟡 Fair |
| 22 | Squzy | OSI-approved OSS | BSD-3-Clause | 62 | 0 | 479 | 50 | 🟡 Fair |
| 23 | bitwobbly | OSI-approved OSS | Apache-2.0 | 49 | 24 | 3 | 50 | 🟡 Fair |
| 24 | Status Page Aggregator | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 44 | 18 | 21 | 49 | 🟡 Fair |
| 25 | CState | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 56 | 7 | 0 | 48 | 🟡 Fair |
| 26 | PongHub | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 59 | 0 | 0 | 47 | 🟡 Fair |
| 27 | Upstat | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 49 | 7 | 0 | 46 | 🟡 Fair |
| 28 | Peekaping | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 44 | 10 | 0 | 45 | 🟡 Fair |
| 29 | Model Status | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 38 | 17 | 43 | 42 | 🟡 Fair |
| 30 | Pongo | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 37 | 4 | 30 | 41 | 🟡 Fair |
| 31 | Warden | OSI-approved OSS | AGPL-3.0 | 40 | 4 | 3 | 41 | 🟡 Fair |
| 32 | Statusphere | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 39 | 0 | 0 | 40 | 🟡 Fair |
| 33 | Reachable | OSI-approved OSS | AGPL-3.0 | 29 | 23 | 3 | 39 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 34 | Aether Status | OSI-approved OSS | Apache-2.0 | 41 | 0 | 0 | 39 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 35 | ClearStatus | OSI-approved OSS | Apache-2.0 | 41 | 0 | 1 | 38 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 36 | StatusNook | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 33 | 0 | 0 | 36 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 37 | Statping | OSI-approved OSS | GPL-3.0 | 36 | 0 | 7290 | 34 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 38 | Status Page | OSI-approved OSS | Apache-2.0 | 27 | 0 | 0 | 31 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 39 | Cloudflare Workers Status Page | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 19 | 0 | 0 | 30 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
Top 3 Highlights
Uptimekit ranks first with a ToolVitals score of 91, the highest in the July 2026 set. Its strongest signal is shipping score at 95, paired with an 87 health score. It has 73 GitHub stars, so this is not a popularity-led result; it leads because the ToolVitals scoring favors current project health and shipping activity. The supplied openness_label is OSI-approved OSS and the license_label is MIT.
Uptime Kuma ranks second with a ToolVitals score of 90 and by far the largest GitHub audience in the list at 89,000 stars. Its 91 health score is the highest among the top-ranked tools, while its 81 shipping score is lower than Uptimekit, Checkmate, and Maintenant. For teams that value broad community adoption alongside strong project health, it is the clearest high-popularity option. The supplied openness_label is OSI-approved OSS and the license_label is MIT.
Checkmate ranks third with a ToolVitals score of 90, tied with Uptime Kuma and Maintenant before the GitHub-star tie-breaker is applied. It combines an 87 health score with a 90 shipping score and has 10,169 GitHub stars. Its description covers server hardware, uptime, response times, incidents, and visualizations, making it broader than a simple status page entry. The supplied openness_label is OSI-approved OSS and the license_label is AGPL-3.0.
Want to see the full health, shipping, openness, and evidence details for every tool in Uptime Monitoring? Browse all Uptime Monitoring Tools →