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
Shipping9894
ToolVitals score9995
Data confidence9090
Source coverage10095
GitHub stars77,49392,892
Forks14,8568,606
Watchers1,289314
Open issues3,321856
Last commitOct 26, 2026Oct 26, 2026
Commits (30d)1,22173
Commits (90d)3,574209
Active contributors (90d)10170
Releases (90d)288
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 gap4 points

The headline score gap is visible enough to investigate the stronger signal first.

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.