HealthchecksvsPulse
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| Healthchecks | Pulse | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 73/100 | 71/100 |
| Rank in category | #2 of 12 in Uptime Monitoring | #2 of 19 in Infrastructure Monitoring |
| GitHub stars | 10 465 | 6 970 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +107 | +229 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 12 | 43 |
| Latest release | v5.0.3 · 27 Oct 2026 | helm-chart-6.6.0 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Easy |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | BSD-3-Clause | MIT |
| Main language | Python | Go |
Which one should you pick?
Healthchecks scores 73/100 against 71/100 for Pulse, so it is the safer default.
Pulse ships more often: 43 stable releases in the past year, against 12 for Healthchecks.
If you want the quickest setup, Pulse is easier to run; Healthchecks needs more configuration.
Pulse is growing faster right now (+229 stars in 30 days).
Healthchecks details →Pulse details →
Swap a project
Keep Healthchecks, compare it with
Keep Pulse, compare it with