HealthchecksvsWildbox
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| Healthchecks | Wildbox | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 73/100 | 44/100 |
| Rank in category | #2 of 12 in Uptime Monitoring | #56 of 78 in Security |
| GitHub stars | 10 469 | 134 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +107 | +0 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 12 | 10 |
| Latest release | v5.0.3 · 27 Oct 2026 | v0.12.2 · 6 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | No |
| License | BSD-3-Clause | MIT |
| Main language | Python | Python |
Which one should you pick?
Healthchecks scores 73/100 against 44/100 for Wildbox, so it is the safer default.
Healthchecks ships more often: 12 stable releases in the past year, against 10 for Wildbox.
If you want the quickest setup, Healthchecks is easier to run; Wildbox needs more configuration.
Healthchecks is growing faster right now (+107 stars in 30 days).
Healthchecks details →Wildbox details →
Swap a project
Keep Healthchecks, compare it with
Keep Wildbox, compare it with