Static comparison

Grafana vs Uptime Kuma

Grafana has the stronger current ToolVitals signal, but check fit, license class, source coverage, and confidence before switching.

Evidence comparison

Use caseObservabilityUptime Monitoring
OpennessOpen coreOSI-approved OSS
LicenseAGPL-3.0MIT
Health9996
Shipping9995
ToolVitals score9996
Data confidence9090
Source coverage10095
GitHub stars76,65891,163
Forks14,7158,385
Watchers1,312319
Open issues3,320800
Last commitSep 11, 2026Sep 11, 2026
Commits (30d)85070
Commits (90d)3,116149
Active contributors (90d)9777
Releases (90d)264
Status reasonCommit continuity, contributor activity, and delivery signals are strong.Commit continuity, contributor activity, and delivery signals are strong.

Decision notes

How to read this matchup

FitDifferent use cases

Grafana is tracked under Observability, while Uptime Kuma is tracked under Uptime Monitoring.

Score gap3 points

The overall signal is close; license, source quality, and fit matter more than the headline score.

GrafanaBest for fast recent shipping and strong maintenance posture

Grafana is tracked as open core with high confidence in ToolVitals data.

Uptime KumaBest for OSI-approved open source and fast recent shipping

Uptime Kuma is tracked as OSI-approved open source with high confidence in ToolVitals data.

Comparison FAQ

Which has the stronger ToolVitals signal, Grafana or Uptime Kuma?

Grafana has the stronger current ToolVitals signal, but check fit, license class, source coverage, and confidence before switching.

Are Grafana and Uptime Kuma direct alternatives?

Not exactly. ToolVitals classifies them in different use cases, so use this page as a public-signal comparison before checking workflow fit.

Do sponsors affect this comparison?

No. Sponsors and affiliate links do not affect ToolVitals scores, rankings, risk labels, or evidence display.

Editorial independence

Affiliate CTAs, when present, use sponsored links and never affect scores, rankings, risk labels, evidence freshness, or comparison verdicts.