Pulse Monitor vs Hertzbeat
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?
Pulse Monitor
Self-hosted monitoring of Proxmox and infrastructure
VS
Hertzbeat
Real-time monitoring system with customizable templates
| Feature | Pulse Monitor | Hertzbeat |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Monitoring & Status | Monitoring & Status |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Go | Java |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Medium |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 1,024 MB |
| Deployment | docker | docker, bare-metal |
| GitHub stars | ★ 6,509 | ★ 7,351 |
| First released | 2024 | 2022 |
| Replaces | Datadog | Zabbix, Datadog |
Why pick each one
Choose Pulse Monitor if…
- Released under the MIT license
- Easy to set up — beginner-friendly
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Mature project with 6.5k GitHub stars
Frequently asked questions
Is Pulse Monitor or Hertzbeat better?
Neither is universally better. Hertzbeat has the larger community, while Pulse Monitor is simpler to set up (easy difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Pulse Monitor and Hertzbeat free and open-source?
Yes. Pulse Monitor is licensed under MIT and Hertzbeat under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Pulse Monitor and Hertzbeat with Docker?
Pulse Monitor: yes. Hertzbeat: yes.