Healthchecksvsstatic_status
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| Healthchecks | static_status | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 73/100 | 50/100 |
| Rank in category | #2 of 12 in Uptime Monitoring | #24 of 51 in Monitoring & observability |
| GitHub stars | 10 466 | 732 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +108 | — |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 12 | 0 |
| Latest release | v5.0.3 · 27 Oct 2026 | — |
| Setup | Moderate | Easy |
| Official Docker image | Yes | No |
| License | BSD-3-Clause | GPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Python | Shell |
Which one should you pick?
Healthchecks scores 73/100 against 50/100 for static_status, so it is the safer default.
Healthchecks ships more often: 12 stable releases in the past year, against 0 for static_status.
If you want the quickest setup, static_status is easier to run; Healthchecks needs more configuration.
Healthchecks is growing faster right now (+108 stars in 30 days).
Healthchecks details →static_status details →
Swap a project
Keep Healthchecks, compare it with
Keep static_status, compare it with