Pulse Monitor vs Apache SkyWalking
A side-by-side comparison of two self-hosted monitoring & status options — licensing, setup difficulty, resource needs, and what each one replaces.
| Feature | Pulse Monitor | Apache SkyWalking |
|---|---|---|
| Deploy effort | Under-an-hour setup | Under-an-hour setup |
| Health score | 91 · Excellent | 97 · Excellent |
| Category | Monitoring & Status | Monitoring & Status |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Go | Java |
| Setup difficulty | Easy | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 2,048 MB |
| Deployment | docker | docker, kubernetes, helm |
| GitHub stars | ★ 6,742 | ★ 24,962 |
| First released | 2024 | 2015 |
| Replaces | Datadog | New Relic, Datadog |
What are Pulse Monitor and Apache SkyWalking?
Pulse Monitor
Pulse is a self-hosted monitoring application focused on Proxmox VE and PBS environments, surfacing node, VM, and backup health. It provides real-time dashboards and alerting.
- Proxmox monitoring
- VM and node health
- Backup status
- Real-time dashboards
Apache SkyWalking
Apache SkyWalking is an APM and observability platform for distributed systems, especially microservices and cloud-native architectures. It provides tracing, metrics, logging, and service topology analysis.
- Distributed tracing and metrics
- Service topology maps
- eBPF and OTel integration
- Alerting engine
Pulse Monitor vs Apache SkyWalking: key differences
Pulse Monitor is written in Go, while Apache SkyWalking is built with Java. Licensing differs — MIT for Pulse Monitor versus Apache-2.0 for Apache SkyWalking. Pulse Monitor is the lighter option, starting around 256 MB of RAM against 2,048 MB for Apache SkyWalking. Apache SkyWalking is the more established project (first released 2015), while Pulse Monitor arrived in 2024. Apache SkyWalking has the considerably larger community, at 24,962 GitHub stars versus 6,742.
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 6.7k GitHub stars
Choose Apache SkyWalking if…
- Full observability suite
- Strong Apache governance
Watch out for
- Steep learning curve
- Storage backend required
Frequently asked questions
Is Pulse Monitor or Apache SkyWalking better?
Neither is universally better. Apache SkyWalking 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 Apache SkyWalking free and open-source?
Yes. Pulse Monitor is licensed under MIT and Apache SkyWalking under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Pulse Monitor and Apache SkyWalking with Docker?
Pulse Monitor: yes. Apache SkyWalking: yes.
Which is lighter on resources, Pulse Monitor or Apache SkyWalking?
Pulse Monitor has the smaller minimum footprint at 256 MB of RAM, compared to about 2,048 MB for Apache SkyWalking. Real-world usage depends on library size, user count, and enabled features.