Hund.io vs. Uptime Kuma
This comparison covers incident workflows, RBAC, and audit logs to serve enterprise needs.
The Bottom Line
For organizations evaluating monitoring and status page solutions, the choice between Hund.io and Uptime Kuma comes down to their team’s scale and governance requirements. Uptime Kuma excels as a free, self-hosted project for technical users comfortable with infrastructure management, while Hund.io provides a comprehensive, managed platform designed for structured incident communication.
At a Glance
| Core Difference | Hund.io: The Managed Service for Business | Uptime Kuma: The Self-Hosted Project |
|---|---|---|
| Service Reliability | Committed to 99.9%+ Uptime with a formal SLA for all paying customers. | Your Responsibility. Reliability is dependent on your hosting and operations. |
| Team Governance | Built-in, with granular RBAC and immutable audit logs. | Currently operates on a single-user model without audit trails. |
| Incident Communication | Structured, with a full incident lifecycle and postmortems. | Basic, with incident posting but no formal resolution workflow. |
| True Cost | Predictable monthly subscription. | “Free” software with ongoing employee time and hosting and maintenance costs. |
Ready to See the Difference?
See how a purpose-built tool can transform your team’s response and build trust with users.
Understanding the Landscape
Uptime Kuma is a popular, free, open source status page that offers built-in monitoring. It supports over 90 notification services, and uses the MIT license. It’s ideal for technical users who value cost-effectiveness and data ownership.
Hund.io is a managed service for teams who need a reliable incident communication tool. We take care of the infrastructure, security, and maintenance, so you can focus on communicating effectively. Our platform adds the necessary layers for business use, such as role-based access, audit trails, and a formal SLA.
Deep-Dive Comparison: The Core Philosophies
Self-Hosted Flexibility vs. Managed Reliability
Self-hosting introduces operational overhead that extends beyond the initial deployment. Teams must manage updates, security patches, backup strategies, and infrastructure scaling.
Hund.io’s managed approach eliminates this operational burden while providing a formal 99.9%+ SLA. This means your incident communication platform remains available precisely when you need it most, allowing teams to focus on resolution rather than infrastructure management.
Basic Monitoring vs. Purpose-Built Incident Communication
Uptime Kuma provides niche monitoring tools, with support from HTTP endpoints to Docker containers. Its strength lies in its simple setup, making it ideal for basic monitoring.
Hund.io approaches monitoring as one component of a larger incident communication workflow. Rather than just detecting issues, Hund treats monitoring as a first-class object directly tied to each component. This architecture enables sophisticated automation. State overrides allow teams to communicate “Performance Degraded” while monitors show “Outage.” Effective dating ensures incident timelines remain accurate sources of truth for postmortems.
During complex incidents that affect multiple services, Uptime Kuma only provides monitoring data. Teams must still coordinate and communicate across channels, while reconstructing the timeline. Hund.io improves these workflows while providing granular control over the narrative, reducing both response time and errors.
Single User vs. Enterprise Governance
Uptime Kuma offers a single user, which makes it difficult to implement least-privilege principles or share with teams.
Hund.io’s role-based access control system supports complex team structures. A central SRE team can maintain full access, while other teams have access only to their dedicated status pages. Combined with granular privacy controls, teams can share specific services with others. This granular approach scales naturally with organizational complexity while maintaining security boundaries.
Feature Comparison
| Feature | Hund | Uptime Kuma |
|---|---|---|
| Core Status Page Features | ||
| Multiple Status Pages | ($) | |
| Built-in Monitoring | ||
| Free Custom Domain Cachet: dependent on your self-hosted configuration | ||
| Free Custom CSS/HTML/JS | ||
| Page Inheritance | ||
| Live Status Widget Uptime Kuma: not real time | ||
| Incident Management and Workflow | ||
| Scheduled Maintenance | ||
| Custom Statuses | ||
| Postmortems | ||
| Information Bulletins | ||
| Alerting Levels | ||
| On-Call Escalations and Scheduling | (Planned) | |
| Automation and Developer Experience | ||
| Comprehensive API Uptime Kuma: Internal API, not versioned | ||
| Official Terraform Provider | ||
| “Dead Man’s Switch” Webhook | ||
| High Frequency Monitoring | ($) | |
| Transaction Monitoring | (Planned) | |
| Enterprise and Governance | ||
| SLA | (99.9%+) | |
| Granular RBAC | ||
| Audit Logs | ||
| Private Pages Uptime Kuma: possible with a self-managed reverse proxy, not native | ($) | |
| Granular Privacy Included in Hund’s Privacy Control upgrade | ||
| One-Click Secure Access Included in Hund’s Privacy Control upgrade | ||
| SSO (SAML/OIDC) Uptime Kuma: Requires external tooling like an authenticating proxy | ($) | |
| Secure Page Embedding | ($) | |
| Granular Uptime Reporting | ||
| Curated Subscriptions | ||
Start Building Better Incident Communication
Join teams who’ve reduced manual work and improved transparency during critical incidents.
Pricing and Value Analysis
The pricing comparison between Hund.io and Uptime Kuma requires examining the total cost of ownership, rather than just software licensing, as their models address different operational approaches.
Hund.io Pricing Highlights:
- Base page: $29/month (20 components included)
- Component packs: from $29/month per 20
- Private Pages: $70/month add-on
- SSO: $100/month account-wide add-on
- Audit logs: included at no extra cost
Uptime Kuma Pricing Highlights:
- Free open-source software under MIT license
- Infrastructure costs for hosting, backup, monitoring, and maintenance
- Engineering time for deployment, updates, security patches, and troubleshooting
- Hund.io: $29 (base) + $58 (40 extra components) + $100 (SSO) = $187/month
- Uptime Kuma: $0 (software) + $10-$50/month (hosting) + third-party services (email) + X hours of employee time = varies
While Uptime Kuma appears to be economical at first, the operational expense quickly shifts the TCO equation. Hund.io’s value proposition becomes clear when calculating the cost of time spent on management instead of core objectives. For teams seeking advanced capabilities, Hund.io offers extensive functionalities in a pricing model based on use.
The Final Verdict
Choose Uptime Kuma if…
You’re a technical user comfortable with self-hosting, have specific data sovereignty requirements, and can manage the cost of maintaining infrastructure in-house.
Choose Hund if…
Your team’s time is better spent on your product than on maintaining internal tools. You need a reliable, managed platform with an SLA, and require security and access controls, like audit logs and team permissions.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can Uptime Kuma handle enterprise-level incident communication workflows?
While Uptime Kuma provides basic incident posting capabilities, it doesn’t currently support advanced workflows like customizable statuses, formal postmortems, or role-based access control that enterprise teams typically require for comprehensive incident communication.
Does Hund.io offer the same monitoring coverage as Uptime Kuma?
Hund.io’s built-in monitoring network covers standard protocols (HTTP, ICMP, DNS, TCP, and UDP) across ten global points of presence. While Uptime Kuma supports more niche checks, Hund.io focuses on robust service monitoring integrated tightly with incident communication workflows and distributed global endpoints, with additional capabilities on the product roadmap.
How does the maintenance burden compare between self-hosted and managed solutions?
Self-hosted Uptime Kuma requires ongoing maintenance, including security updates, backup management, scaling decisions, and troubleshooting during downtime. Hund.io’s managed approach eliminates this operational expense while providing formal SLA commitments, allowing teams to focus on core business objectives rather than monitoring infrastructure maintenance.
This comparison is based on publicly available information as of September 2025. Features, pricing, and product capabilities may change over time. While we aim to ensure accuracy, readers should confirm the latest details directly with each vendor. All product names and logos are the property of their respective owners.
Ready for a Strategic Approach to Incident Communication?
See how a dedicated platform can reduce manual work during incidents and help you communicate with clarity and confidence.
No credit card required • All features included