louislam/uptime-kuma

Choose this fork only if its notification-specific changes are the reason you need it. For most adopters, upstream is the safer default because it is much more current and actively maintained; this fork looks like a customized, stale branch with meaningful maintenance risk.

Prefer this fork only if its recurring scheduling or compatibility changes are exactly what you need and you are willing to own an old codebase. For most adopters, upstream is the better choice because it is far more active and feature-complete.

Prefer upstream unless you specifically need this fork’s legacy behavior or custom monitor workflow changes. This fork is not a safe default for new adopters because it is stale, heavily diverged, and has at least one clear operational regression in backup handling.

Prefer this fork only if its added monitor/notification workflows solve a concrete need you have today. If you mainly want a stable, broadly supported Uptime Kuma install, upstream is the safer choice because it is much more current and less likely to surprise you on upgrade.

Choose this fork only if you need its custom workflow changes and can tolerate carrying a stale, highly divergent codebase. For most adopters, upstream Uptime Kuma is the safer default because it is far more active and feature-current.

Prefer this fork only if Vercel deployment is the primary requirement. For most adopters, upstream Uptime Kuma is the better choice because it is actively maintained and much more complete.

Pick this fork only if you need its specific local changes and are willing to own the divergence. If you want the latest Uptime Kuma features, fixes, and easier maintenance, upstream is the safer choice.

Choose this fork only if you specifically want its customizations and are prepared to live with lagging upstream. For most adopters, upstream Uptime Kuma is the safer default.