Fail2Ban Webinterface vs Uptime Kuma
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted monitoring & status options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
Not the right match-up?
Fail2Ban Webinterface
Monitor Fail2Ban and manually ban / release IP's
VS
Uptime Kuma
Easy self-hosted uptime monitoring tool
| Feature | Fail2Ban Webinterface | Uptime Kuma |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Monitoring & Status | Monitoring & Status |
| License | AGPL-3.0-or-later | MIT |
| Language | PHP | JavaScript |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 50 MB | 256 MB |
| Deployment | bare-metal | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 7 | ★ 89,960 |
| First released | 2024 | 2021 |
| Replaces | — | Pingdom, UptimeRobot |
Why pick each one
Choose Fail2Ban Webinterface if…
- Released under the AGPL-3.0-or-later license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- Written in PHP
- Tiny footprint — runs in 50 MB RAM
Frequently asked questions
Is Fail2Ban Webinterface or Uptime Kuma better?
Neither is universally better. Uptime Kuma has the larger community; both share a easy setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Fail2Ban Webinterface and Uptime Kuma free and open-source?
Yes. Fail2Ban Webinterface is licensed under AGPL-3.0-or-later and Uptime Kuma under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Fail2Ban Webinterface and Uptime Kuma with Docker?
Fail2Ban Webinterface: check the project docs for container support. Uptime Kuma: yes.