static_statusvsWorld Monitor
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| static_status | World Monitor | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 50/100 | 86/100 |
| Rank in category | #24 of 51 in Monitoring & observability | #5 of 104 in Monitoring & observability |
| GitHub stars | 732 | 89 719 |
| Stars, last 30 days | — | +2 430 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 0 | 17 |
| Latest release | — | v2.11.6 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Easy | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | No | No |
| License | GPL-3.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Shell | Typescript |
Which one should you pick?
World Monitor scores 86/100 against 50/100 for static_status, so it is the safer default.
World Monitor ships more often: 17 stable releases in the past year, against 0 for static_status.
If you want the quickest setup, static_status is easier to run; World Monitor needs more configuration.
World Monitor is growing faster right now (+2 430 stars in 30 days).
static_status details →World Monitor details →
Swap a project
Keep static_status, compare it with
Keep World Monitor, compare it with