Healthchecks vs Peekaping
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?
Healthchecks
Cron job and scheduled task monitoring
VS
Peekaping
Self-hosted uptime monitoring and status page service
| Feature | Healthchecks | Peekaping |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Monitoring & Status | Monitoring & Status |
| License | BSD-3-Clause | MIT |
| Language | Python | Go |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Easy |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 128 MB |
| Deployment | docker, bare-metal | docker |
| GitHub stars | ★ 10,226 | ★ 1,169 |
| First released | 2015 | 2024 |
| Replaces | Pingdom | Pingdom, Better Uptime |
Why pick each one
Choose Healthchecks if…
- Catches silently failing jobs
- Lots of notification channels
- Lightweight
Frequently asked questions
Is Healthchecks or Peekaping better?
Neither is universally better. Healthchecks has the larger community; both share a easy setup difficulty, so the decision comes down to features and licensing.
Are Healthchecks and Peekaping free and open-source?
Yes. Healthchecks is licensed under BSD-3-Clause and Peekaping under MIT. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Healthchecks and Peekaping with Docker?
Healthchecks: yes. Peekaping: yes.