NUT Exporter 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.
Not the right match-up?
NUT Exporter
Prometheus exporter for Network UPS Tools
VS
Apache SkyWalking
APM and observability for cloud-native architectures
| Feature | NUT Exporter | Apache SkyWalking |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Monitoring & Status | Monitoring & Status |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | Go | Java |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 64 MB | 2,048 MB |
| Deployment | docker, binary | docker, kubernetes, helm |
| GitHub stars | ★ 333 | ★ 24,915 |
| First released | 2019 | 2015 |
| Replaces | APC PowerChute | New Relic, Datadog |
Why pick each one
Choose NUT Exporter if…
- Released under the MIT license
- First-class Docker support for quick deployment
- Written in Go
- Tiny footprint — runs in 64 MB RAM
Choose Apache SkyWalking if…
- Full observability suite
- Strong Apache governance
Frequently asked questions
Is NUT Exporter or Apache SkyWalking better?
Neither is universally better. Apache SkyWalking has the larger community, while NUT Exporter is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are NUT Exporter and Apache SkyWalking free and open-source?
Yes. NUT Exporter is licensed under MIT and Apache SkyWalking under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run NUT Exporter and Apache SkyWalking with Docker?
NUT Exporter: yes. Apache SkyWalking: yes.