World Monitorvszookeeper
Two self-hosted projects, compared on the numbers selfhost.directory tracks live: score, popularity, release cadence and setup effort.
| World Monitor | zookeeper | |
|---|---|---|
| Score | 86/100 | 73/100 |
| Rank in category | #5 of 104 in Monitoring & observability | #1 of 8 in Configuration Management |
| GitHub stars | 89 719 | 12 826 |
| Stars, last 30 days | +2 430 | +16 |
| Stable releases, 12 months | 17 | 0 |
| Latest release | v2.11.6 · 25 Oct 2026 | — |
| Setup | Advanced | Moderate |
| Official Docker image | No | No |
| License | AGPL-3.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Main language | Typescript | Java |
Which one should you pick?
World Monitor scores 86/100 against 73/100 for zookeeper, so it is the safer default.
World Monitor ships more often: 17 stable releases in the past year, against 0 for zookeeper.
If you want the quickest setup, zookeeper is easier to run; World Monitor needs more configuration.
World Monitor is growing faster right now (+2 430 stars in 30 days).
World Monitor details →zookeeper details →
Swap a project
Keep World Monitor, compare it with
Keep zookeeper, compare it with