e2bvsuptime-kuma
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| e2b | uptime-kuma | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 76/100 | 88/100 |
| Rank in category | #14 of 209 in AI Agents | #3 of 104 in Monitoring & observability |
| GitHub stars | 14 593 | 93 034 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +655 | +1 287 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 73 | 19 |
| Latest release | @e2b/cli@2.23.0 · 28 Oct 2026 | 2.5.8 · 26 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Easy |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Main language | Python | JavaScript |
Which one should you pick?
uptime-kuma scores 88/100 against 76/100 for e2b, so it is the safer default.
e2b ships more often: 73 stable releases in the past year, against 19 for uptime-kuma.
If you want the quickest setup, uptime-kuma is easier to run; e2b needs more configuration.
e2b details →uptime-kuma details →