SigNoz vs Uptime Kuma
SigNoz, Uptime Kuma compared on license, free-edition limits, deployment and project health. Change a project below to compare something else.
| SigNoz | Uptime Kuma | |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Monitoring | Monitoring |
| License | MIT LicenseOpen source (OSI) | MIT LicenseOpen source (OSI) |
| Free edition | Some features paywalled | Not confirmed |
| Deployment | Self-hosted · Cloud | Self-hosted |
| Self-hosting setup | Multi-service setup | Single container |
| SSO / SAML | Paid | Not confirmed |
| Role-based access control | Paid | Not confirmed |
| Audit logs | Not confirmed | Not confirmed |
| Multi-user / teams | Not confirmed | Not confirmed |
| Backups and restore | Not confirmed | Not confirmed |
| API access | Free | Not confirmed |
| Support SLA | Paid | Not confirmed |
| GitHub stars | 32k | 92k |
| Last release | Oct 14, 2026 | Oct 9, 2026 |
| Alternative to | Datadog | Statuspage, UptimeRobot |
In short
- SigNoz is licensed MIT License (open source (osi)). Free edition: some features paywalled.
- Uptime Kuma is licensed MIT License (open source (osi)). Free edition: not confirmed.
Each project page lists the official sources behind these answers. Where the official pages do not say, the table shows “Not confirmed”.