Comparison
Run Uptime Kuma yourself, or let monitoring be someone else’s job?
Uptime Kuma is an excellent open-source tool and often the right choice for homelabs. The honest question is not "which tool is better" but: do you want to run, secure and monitor your monitoring yourself, or should it simply work?
The comparison at a glance
Details about Uptime Kuma: as of July 2026, based on publicly available vendor information. Please verify there.
When is Uptime Kuma the better choice?
- •Homelab, internal services or hobby projects: full control, zero license cost.
- •You want monitoring data exclusively on your own hardware.
- •You enjoy self-hosting and already run a well-maintained Docker environment.
When is Clesk Uptime the better choice?
- ✓Client projects or your own shop: monitoring must not die with the server it watches.
- ✓Nobody on the team wants to own updates, backups and monitoring-the-monitoring at night.
- ✓You need solid evidence (signed logs) rather than database rows on your own system.
FAQ
I already run Uptime Kuma. Why switch?
You do not have to. Many combine both: Uptime Kuma internally, Clesk Uptime as the external, independent instance for business-critical sites, including evidence-grade logs.
What does Uptime Kuma really cost?
The software is free. In practice you add a server (roughly €4-10/month), updates, backups, TLS and your time, plus the risk of monitoring and monitored services failing together.
Is Uptime Kuma not just as good?
As a tool: yes, it is mature and actively maintained. The difference is the operating model: hosted and independent versus self-run on your own infrastructure.
Give your important sites an external watchdog.
Three monitors free forever, set up in two minutes.
Monitor for free