Choosing an uptime monitor means balancing coverage, deployment model, and project reliability. This August 2026 comparison uses the supplied ToolVitals records to show which source-visible tools currently combine strong overall scores with healthy, active shipping signals.
The ranking includes open/source-visible tools only. Tools are ordered by ToolVitals score descending, with health and shipping used for equal composite scores. GitHub stars are context only and do not determine the ordering.
Rankings
| Rank | Tool | Openness | License | Health | Shipping | GitHub Stars | Score | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Checkmate | OSI-approved OSS | AGPL-3.0 | 100 | 100 | 10753 | 100 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 2 | Uptime Kuma | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 98 | 97 | 90599 | 98 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 3 | OpenStatus | OSI-approved OSS | AGPL-3.0 | 95 | 90 | 9017 | 93 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 4 | Yet Another Status Page | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 94 | 91 | 32 | 93 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 5 | Kuvasz | OSI-approved OSS | AGPL-3.0 | 94 | 86 | 596 | 91 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 6 | Uptimekit | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 93 | 88 | 103 | 91 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 7 | Maintenant | OSI-approved OSS | AGPL-3.0 | 89 | 94 | 456 | 91 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 8 | Kener | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 93 | 86 | 5128 | 90 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 9 | Healthchecks | OSI-approved OSS | BSD-3-Clause | 90 | 91 | 10285 | 90 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 10 | Upptime | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 87 | 88 | 17147 | 87 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 11 | ohstatus | OSI-approved OSS | GPL-2.0 | 87 | 88 | 1 | 87 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 12 | Arki Uptime | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 84 | 87 | 0 | 85 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 13 | Fettle | OSI-approved OSS | Apache-2.0 | 84 | 87 | 279 | 85 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 14 | Telegai Status | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 84 | 87 | 0 | 85 | 🟢 Excellent |
| 15 | OpsKnight | OSI-approved OSS | Apache-2.0 | 77 | 71 | 36 | 75 | 🟢 Good |
| 16 | Uptimer | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 74 | 57 | 0 | 67 | 🟢 Good |
| 17 | Gatus | OSI-approved OSS | Apache-2.0 | 74 | 53 | 11896 | 66 | 🟢 Good |
| 18 | Warden | OSI-approved OSS | AGPL-3.0 | 67 | 52 | 3 | 61 | 🟢 Good |
| 19 | Harbour Space Status | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 68 | 49 | 0 | 60 | 🟢 Good |
| 20 | Upstat | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 66 | 44 | 201 | 57 | 🟡 Fair |
| 21 | Pongo | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 53 | 35 | 29 | 46 | 🟡 Fair |
| 22 | bitwobbly | OSI-approved OSS | Apache-2.0 | 49 | 33 | 3 | 43 | 🟡 Fair |
| 23 | PongHub | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 51 | 25 | 225 | 41 | 🟡 Fair |
| 24 | STS | OSI-approved OSS | Apache-2.0 | 40 | 25 | 24 | 34 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 25 | Status Page Aggregator | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 29 | 24 | 21 | 27 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 26 | CheckCle | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 32 | 11 | 2943 | 24 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 27 | CState | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 29 | 10 | 2892 | 21 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 28 | Lunalytics | OSI-approved OSS | AGPL-3.0 | 29 | 2 | 736 | 18 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 29 | Stremio Status | OSI-approved OSS | GPL-3.0 | 22 | 12 | 88 | 18 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 30 | Uni Status | OSI-approved OSS | AGPL-3.0 | 21 | 2 | 4 | 13 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 31 | Peekaping | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 6 | 2 | 1179 | 4 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 32 | Reachable | OSI-approved OSS | AGPL-3.0 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 33 | UptimeMonitor Server | OSI-approved OSS | GPL-3.0 | 6 | 2 | 65 | 4 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 34 | Aether Status | OSI-approved OSS | Apache-2.0 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 35 | ClearStatus | OSI-approved OSS | Apache-2.0 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 36 | Model Status | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 5 | 0 | 42 | 3 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 37 | Statusphere | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 5 | 0 | 69 | 3 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 38 | Uptimed | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 5 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 39 | server-status | OSI-approved OSS | Apache-2.0 | 2 | 0 | 408 | 1 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 40 | Cloudflare Workers Status Page | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 0 | 0 | 2808 | 0 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 41 | Statping | OSI-approved OSS | GPL-3.0 | 0 | 0 | 7292 | 0 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 42 | Status Page | OSI-approved OSS | Apache-2.0 | 0 | 0 | 74 | 0 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
| 43 | StatusNook | OSI-approved OSS | MIT | 0 | 0 | 975 | 0 | 🔴 Needs Attention |
Top 3 Highlights
Checkmate ranks first with a ToolVitals score of 100, backed by health and shipping scores of 100 each. Its project description presents it as a self-hosted tool for monitoring server hardware, uptime, response times, and incidents in real time, with visualizations. It is labeled OSI-approved OSS and AGPL-3.0.
Uptime Kuma ranks second with a ToolVitals score of 98, a health score of 98, and a shipping score of 97. Its concise project description focuses on self-hosted monitoring, making it a straightforward option for teams that want to run the service themselves. It is labeled OSI-approved OSS and MIT.
OpenStatus ranks third with a ToolVitals score of 93, a health score of 95, and a shipping score of 90. Its project description combines a status page with uptime monitoring and API monitoring as code, which suits teams that want monitoring and public incident communication in one project. It is labeled OSI-approved OSS and AGPL-3.0.
Want to see the full health, license, shipping, and confidence details for every tool in Uptime Monitoring? Browse all Uptime Monitoring Tools →