portabasevsuptime-kuma
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| portabase | uptime-kuma | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 60/100 | 88/100 |
| Rank in category | #3 of 15 in Backup Management | #3 of 104 in Monitoring & observability |
| GitHub stars | 1 860 | 93 018 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +95 | +1 271 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 64 | 19 |
| Latest release | 1.35.0 · 27 Oct 2026 | 2.5.8 · 26 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Easy |
| Official Docker image | Yes | Yes |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Main language | Typescript | JavaScript |
Which one should you pick?
uptime-kuma scores 88/100 against 60/100 for portabase, so it is the safer default.
portabase ships more often: 64 stable releases in the past year, against 19 for uptime-kuma.
If you want the quickest setup, uptime-kuma is easier to run; portabase needs more configuration.
uptime-kuma is growing faster right now (+1 271 stars in 30 days).
portabase details →uptime-kuma details →
Swap a project
Keep portabase, compare it with
Keep uptime-kuma, compare it with