SolidPing vs Uptime Kuma

Uptime Kuma is the reason most people self-host monitoring at all. ~90,500 stars, a single container, a dashboard that makes sense in thirty seconds. If it covers what you need, keep it — this page is not going to argue you out of a tool that works.

Both sides here are self-hosted. Kuma has no hosted service, so the comparison is against SolidPing self-hosted — the AGPL-3.0 binary on your own hardware, with no plan and no caps. We do sell a hosted version, and it is described further down, but nothing in the table below depends on it.

It is worth reading if you have hit one of Kuma's edges: you need more than one person to log in, you need checks to run from more than one place, you need someone to be paged rather than notified, or you need to watch something that speaks a protocol Kuma does not.

You can bring your setup with you. SolidPing ships a first-party Uptime Kuma importer — point it at your Kuma export and it converts your monitors, with a dry-run mode so you can see exactly what you would get before anything is created.

If we've gotten a detail about Uptime Kuma wrong, please open an issue — we want this accurate.

At a glance​

Where SolidPing is the stronger choice​

More than one person needs access. Kuma is built around a single operator. It has no multi-tenancy, no role-based access, and no read-only accounts — so there is no way to let a colleague look without letting them edit, and no way to separate one team's monitors from another's. SolidPing is multi-tenant with roles, and hooks into whatever identity provider you already run.

You need checks from more than one place. A single Kuma instance sees the world from exactly one network position, so it cannot tell "the service is down" from "my one vantage point cannot reach it". SolidPing runs distributed workers you deploy yourself, with per-region check periods, and confirms across them.

You need to watch things that are not websites. Kuma covers 13 monitor types. SolidPing covers 40 — PostgreSQL, MySQL, MSSQL, Oracle, Redis, MongoDB, ClickHouse; SMTP, IMAP and POP3, plus a passive email-reception check; gRPC, Kafka, RabbitMQ, MQTT, SIP; SSH, RDP, FTP, SFTP; SNMP, Docker, Kubernetes, Prometheus; SSL and domain expiry; NTP, DNSBL; headless-browser and custom JavaScript checks. (Kuma is not standing still: this was 12 in July 2026 and 13 in August. We re-check before publishing.)

Someone has to be woken up. Kuma notifies; it has no concept of who is on call tonight. SolidPing ships rotation schedules with overrides and iCal feeds, plus multi-step escalation policies — no PagerDuty subscription on top.

You want PostgreSQL. Kuma supports SQLite and MariaDB; PostgreSQL is not officially supported. SolidPing runs on either SQLite or PostgreSQL with the same binary.

You have private infrastructure to watch. SolidPing's deported agent generates its own keypair locally and receives age-sealed credentials, so a check that runs only in your private region is structurally unreadable by the server — even the hosted one. Nothing needs a firewall hole opened inwards.

Where Uptime Kuma is the stronger choice​

Far more notification integrations. Kuma ships 90+ notification providers against our 16. If your alerting goes somewhere niche, Kuma very likely already speaks it.

A larger community than anyone else's. ~90,500 stars means every problem you will hit has been hit before, and there is a forum post about it. That is worth a lot at 2 a.m.

Translated into 20+ languages. We ship four. For a team that is not English-first and not French, German or Spanish either, that decides it.

Maturity. Kuma has been shipping since 2021 and is on a stable 2.x line. SolidPing is younger, and honesty demands we say so.

It is genuinely simpler. If you are one person monitoring twenty websites from one box, Kuma does that beautifully and SolidPing's multi-tenancy, regions and on-call are weight you are carrying for no reason.

The other model, on both sides​

Uptime Kuma has no hosted service. There is no official cloud; third parties will run a Kuma container for you, but that is their operation, not the project's, and the data and the pager are theirs too.

SolidPing has one, and it runs the same binary. SolidPing Cloud starts free — 100 monitors, 10 checks a minute, five seats, on-call included — and goes €5 / €15 / €45 for more of each, checked from six shared regions with no worker for you to place. Two things you have here are missing there: the caps come back (monitors, check rate, seats, agents, status-page domains), and SMS, voice and WhatsApp are not included, because carriers bill per message. Self-hosted keeps all three by letting you bring your own Twilio account. If the appeal of Kuma is that you run it yourself, stay self-hosted — the hosted plan is for the day you would rather not.

Migrating from Uptime Kuma​

SolidPing has a first-party converter for Kuma exports, reachable through the API:

POST /api/v1/orgs/{org}/checks/import/convert?source=uptimekuma&dryRun=true

Run it with dryRun=true first: it returns exactly what would be created — how many checks the conversion produced and what each one became — without touching anything. Drop the flag when the result looks right.

Not everything maps one-to-one, and the honest answer is that monitor types with no SolidPing equivalent are reported rather than silently dropped, so you can see what needs doing by hand.

Which should you pick?​

Stay on Uptime Kuma if you are one operator with one network location and a set of HTTP and TCP checks that it already handles. It is an excellent tool and there is no prize for switching.

Look at SolidPing when you outgrow one of Kuma's edges — a second person who needs access, a second region to check from, a database or message queue to watch, or a rotation that needs to page someone. The importer means trying it costs an afternoon, not a migration project.