ChronoFramevsUptime-Kuma-Web-API
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| ChronoFrame | Uptime-Kuma-Web-API | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 63/100 | 39/100 |
| Rank in category | #8 of 41 in Photo Management | #12 of 13 in API |
| GitHub stars | 1 964 | 282 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +32 | +0 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 3 | 0 |
| Latest release | v1.0.2 · 21 Oct 2026 | — |
| Setup | Easy | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | — |
| Main language | Typescript | Python |
Which one should you pick?
ChronoFrame scores 63/100 against 39/100 for Uptime-Kuma-Web-API, so it is the safer default.
ChronoFrame ships more often: 3 stable releases in the past year, against 0 for Uptime-Kuma-Web-API.
If you want the quickest setup, ChronoFrame is easier to run; Uptime-Kuma-Web-API needs more configuration.
ChronoFrame is growing faster right now (+32 stars in 30 days).
ChronoFrame details →Uptime-Kuma-Web-API details →
Swap a project
Keep ChronoFrame, compare it with
Keep Uptime-Kuma-Web-API, compare it with