Head-to-Head Comparison
Uptime Kuma vs Glances
A side-by-side technical evaluation across security posture, maintenance cadence, community vitality, and commercial licensing within the Monitoring & Status category.
Option A
Uptime Kuma
louislam/uptime-kuma93/100
High-reliability synthetic uptime and service health monitoring server with multi-channel alerting.
HealthyFull Audit Report →
Option B
Glances
nicolargo/glances86/100
Curses and web-based system monitoring tool written in Python with REST API.
HealthyFull Audit Report →
Technical & Metric Comparison
Verifiable data scraped directly from GitHub API and OpenSSF scorecards.
| Metric | Uptime Kuma | Glances | Advantage |
|---|---|---|---|
| Composite Safety Score | 93/100 | 86/100 | Uptime Kuma |
| Status Verdict | Healthy | Healthy | — |
| License SPDX | MIT | LGPL-3.0-only | — |
| GitHub Stars | 62,400 | 26,800 | Uptime Kuma (+35,600) |
| Primary Language | JavaScript / Vue | Python | — |
| Self-Host Difficulty | Easy | Easy | — |
| OpenSSF Scorecard | 8.6/10 | 7.8/10 | Uptime Kuma |
| Last Push | 1d ago | 4d ago | Uptime Kuma |
Which Should You Pick? (Algorithmic Verdict)
Both tools demonstrate competitive quality, with Uptime Kuma holding a slight operational edge (93/100 vs 86/100). Choose Uptime Kuma if you prioritize stricter automated testing and recent release hygiene; choose Glances if its specific feature set (Python) better matches your internal infrastructure.
Pick Uptime Kuma if:
- You prefer a JavaScript / Vue-based stack.
- You require MIT licensing terms.
- Its easy deployment fits your ops requirements.
Pick Glances if:
- You prefer a Python-based runtime.
- Your team works comfortably with LGPL-3.0-only.
- You value its specific community ecosystem and client support.
ADVERTISEMENTReserved Zero-CLS Placement