Parca 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?
Parca
Continuous profiling with eBPF whole-system insight
VS
Apache SkyWalking
APM and observability for cloud-native architectures
| Feature | Parca | Apache SkyWalking |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Monitoring & Status | Monitoring & Status |
| License | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 |
| Language | TypeScript | Java |
| Setup difficulty | Medium | Hard |
| Min. RAM | 256 MB | 2,048 MB |
| Deployment | docker, kubernetes, binary | docker, kubernetes, helm |
| GitHub stars | ★ 4,935 | ★ 24,915 |
| First released | 2021 | 2015 |
| Replaces | Datadog Profiler | New Relic, Datadog |
Why pick each one
Choose Apache SkyWalking if…
- Full observability suite
- Strong Apache governance
Frequently asked questions
Is Parca or Apache SkyWalking better?
Neither is universally better. Apache SkyWalking has the larger community, while Parca is simpler to set up (medium difficulty). Choose based on the comparison table above and your own setup.
Are Parca and Apache SkyWalking free and open-source?
Yes. Parca is licensed under Apache-2.0 and Apache SkyWalking under Apache-2.0. Both can be self-hosted at no software cost.
Can I run Parca and Apache SkyWalking with Docker?
Parca: yes. Apache SkyWalking: yes.