/jump to repo

Repos Recent Bookmarks Watched Notes Tags Discover Compare Stats GitHub

Repository brief

louislam/uptime-kuma

Read the upstream summary on the left, browse the cached forks below it, and load each fork comparison into the right-hand panel.

Cached analysis

cached 2026-03-30T11:53:23.739Z

3mo ago

louislam/uptime-kuma

Uptime Kuma is a popular self-hosted monitoring tool with a large, active upstream: 84,645 stars, 7,577 forks, and recent commits as of 2026-03-30. It is packaged for Docker and non-Docker installs, and the repository is still actively maintained.

Loading tags...

Stars84,645

Forks7,577

Default branchmaster

Last pushed2026-03-30T00:10:22Z

Recommended shortcuts

Jump straight into Discofork's strongest cached fork picks, or open a compare view in one click.

Forks

Choose a fork to inspect

9 of 9 fork briefs

Maintenance:

Magnitude:

Sort:

Selected

Choose this fork if you want a customized, possibly simplified Uptime Kuma derivative and can accept losing some upstream features and updates. Choose upstream if you want the broadest monitoring coverage, active maintenance, and the least migration risk.

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.

Fork comparison

samyk/uptime-kuma

54/100

slowing

significant_divergence

Choose this fork if you want a customized, possibly simplified Uptime Kuma derivative and can accept losing some upstream features and updates. Choose upstream if you want the broadest monitoring coverage, active maintenance, and the least migration risk.

Likely purpose

For adopters who want Uptime Kuma as a base for a customized monitoring product, especially if they value a different monitor-editing flow and are willing to trade upstream parity for fork-specific changes.

Best for

Teams that want to ship a customized Uptime Kuma derivative.; Users who prefer a fork with a modified monitor-editing experience.; Operators who do not need full upstream feature parity and are comfortable validating missing behaviors themselves.

Additional features

Reworked monitor-editing workflow in `EditMonitor.vue`, suggesting a customized UI/UX for managing monitors.
Monitor-behavior changes in `server/model/monitor.js`, indicating fork-specific monitoring logic beyond a straight upstream mirror.
Adds or extends platform-specific client support, such as mobile, Android, iOS, or desktop packaging.
Introduces more operational workflow surface such as server-side handling, auth, session control, or admin tooling.
Changes agent workflow behavior, such as prompt handling, handoffs, worktrees, memory, or orchestration flow.
Adds performance-oriented execution paths, caching, or faster runtime modes.

Missing features

The fork is 341 commits behind upstream, so it likely lacks a substantial set of upstream fixes and recent additions.
Globalping-related backend coverage appears to have been removed or disabled (`test/backend-test/test-globalping.js`).
RDAP/DNS data support appears to have been removed or reduced (`extra/rdap-dns.json`).
Multiple locale files were heavily truncated or removed, so translation coverage may be worse than upstream.
It trails upstream by 341 commits, so some recent upstream features and fixes are likely not present yet.

Strengths

Large divergence can be useful if you want a tailored fork rather than upstream defaults.
Recent history suggests some active maintenance through at least 2025-09.
Core Uptime Kuma monitoring base is still recognizable, so it likely remains familiar for existing users.

Risks

High merge distance from upstream means future rebasing may be painful.
Large deletion count suggests feature loss or simplification, not just additive customization.
The fork has low community traction compared with upstream, so issue resolution and long-term maintenance are less certain.

louislam/uptime-kuma · Discofork