supabase-automated-self-hostvsWorld Monitor
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| supabase-automated-self-host | World Monitor | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 48/100 | 86/100 |
| Rank in category | #13 of 15 in Backend as a Service | #5 of 104 in Monitoring & observability |
| GitHub stars | 506 | 89 727 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +0 | +2 388 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 0 | 17 |
| Latest release | — | v2.11.6 · 25 Oct 2026 |
| Setup | Moderate | Advanced |
| Official Docker image | Yes | No |
| License | Apache-2.0 | AGPL-3.0 |
| Main language | Shell | Typescript |
Which one should you pick?
World Monitor scores 86/100 against 48/100 for supabase-automated-self-host, so it is the safer default.
World Monitor ships more often: 17 stable releases in the past year, against 0 for supabase-automated-self-host.
If you want the quickest setup, supabase-automated-self-host is easier to run; World Monitor needs more configuration.
World Monitor is growing faster right now (+2 388 stars in 30 days).
supabase-automated-self-host details →World Monitor details →