# RustFS vs uptime-kuma

> Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.

| | RustFS | uptime-kuma |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 74/100 | 88/100 ✓ |
| Rank in category | #1 of 5 in Storage | #3 of 104 in Monitoring & observability |
| GitHub stars | 35 514 | 93 048 ✓ |
| Stars, last 30 days | +1 682 ✓ | +1 254 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 5 | 19 ✓ |
| Latest release | 1.0.4 · 25 Oct 2026 | 2.5.8 · 26 Oct 2026 ✓ |
| Setup | Advanced | Easy ✓ |
| Official Docker image | No | Yes ✓ |
| License | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Main language | Rust | JavaScript |

## Which one should you pick?

uptime-kuma scores 88/100 against 74/100 for RustFS, so it is the safer default.

uptime-kuma ships more often: 19 stable releases in the past year, against 5 for RustFS.

If you want the quickest setup, uptime-kuma is easier to run; RustFS needs more configuration.

## Details

- [RustFS](https://selfhost.directory/project/rustfs) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/rustfs.md)
- [uptime-kuma](https://selfhost.directory/project/uptime-kuma) (markdown: https://selfhost.directory/project/uptime-kuma.md)

---
Source: https://selfhost.directory/compare/rustfs-vs-uptime-kuma