Uptime Kuma
by Uptime Kuma · Self-hosted monitoring tool you run in Docker
BenchRank score
Screenshots of Uptime Kuma
Homepage
Overview
Uptime Kuma is a self-hosted monitoring tool. It is installed by running its Docker image (louislam/uptime-kuma:2), publishing port 3001 and mounting a volume at /app/data so data persists across restarts. The project site links to a live demo, documentation, a GitHub repository and a status page.
- Best for
- Teams that want to run their own uptime monitoring on a server they control, via Docker.
- Pricing
- No prices are shown on the captured page; the tool is self-hosted from a public Docker image.
- Runs on
- Self-hosted
Strengths and trade-offs
Strengths
- Self-hosted, so monitoring stays on your own server
- Installs with a single Docker run command
- Live demo and documentation linked from the site
- Data kept in a Docker volume mounted at /app/data
Trade-offs
- You must provide and maintain the host server yourself
- No hosted or managed option is offered on the page
- The page states no features, monitor types or integrations
Pricing
Published plans and prices from Uptime Kuma’s own pricing page.
How this score is made up
Each dimension is scored out of 100 and combined into the headline score using fixed weights.
MCP support
Whether an agent can drive the product through the Model Context Protocol, and how much setup that takes.
API quality
Public API surface: machine-readable spec, official SDKs, documented auth, errors, rate limits and versioning.
Documentation
Publicly reachable docs — coverage, freshness, code samples and machine readability.
Agent friendliness
How readable the site is to an automated client: llms.txt, structured data, server-rendered content, crawler access.
Changelog
A public, dated record of what shipped and when — the clearest signal that a product is still alive.
Marketing site structure
Whether the site answers a buyer's questions: clear positioning, the pages that matter, and accessibility.
Page speed
How fast the site loads for real visitors: Chrome UX Report 75th-percentile LCP, INP and CLS, with a Lighthouse mobile run standing in where a site has too little traffic for field data.
Operational trust
Status page and incident history, security disclosure, compliance and data-processing documentation.
Measured, but not part of the score
Useful to know, but not a mark for or against the product — so these do not affect the ranking.
Openness
Source availability, self-hosting, data export and open standards. Scored and shown, but not part of the composite — paid SaaS is not worse for being paid SaaS.
Maintenance
Release cadence and repository activity. Scored and shown, but not part of the composite — it is only measurable for open repositories.
This doesn’t look right — report a problem with Uptime Kuma’s score
Where this comes from
The Uptime Kuma pages BenchRank reads when it scores the product — its documentation, release notes, status and security pages, and its repository where there is one.
Alternatives in Monitoring & Observability
Ranked 1
87.4 — BenchRank score out of 100openstatus
OpenStatus · Open source status pages with uptime monitoring from 28 regions
Best for: Teams that need a public status page and uptime checks while working towards SOC 2.
Ranked 2
86.7 — BenchRank score out of 100OneUptime
OneUptime · Open-source observability and incident management on one platform
Best for: Teams wanting monitoring, on-call, status pages and observability on one open-source platform
Ranked 3
83.1 — BenchRank score out of 100Sentry
Sentry · Error tracking and application performance monitoring for developers
Best for: Development teams wanting error monitoring, tracing and session replay tied to one trace
Is this your product?
Claim Uptime Kuma to manage its profile. Claiming lets you suggest edits to the descriptive fields — it never changes scores or rankings.