Nagios more or less invented this category and its plugin ecosystem is still unmatched. Kuma does a fraction of what it does, in about a thousandth of the time. Which matters depends entirely on what you are monitoring.
Free plan forever · No credit card · Set up in under a minute
Which should you choose?
Uptime Kuma for almost anyone starting today who wants to watch endpoints. Nagios if you have an existing Nagios estate, need a specific plugin from its enormous library, or work somewhere it is already the standard. Starting a new Nagios installation in 2026 to watch websites is a decision that needs a better reason than habit.
Written by MonitoringDaddy, who also sell monitoring. We have tried to be straight about where each of these wins, including where they beat us. Prices and features are as at August 2026 and change often.
| Uptime Kuma | Nagios | MonitoringDaddy | |
|---|---|---|---|
| First released | 2021 | 1999 | 2025 |
| Configuration | Web interface | Configuration files, mostly | Web interface |
| Scope | Endpoint checks | Anything, via plugins | Endpoint checks of every kind |
| Plugin ecosystem | None to speak of | Vast, decades deep | None — nothing to assemble |
| Interface | Modern | Dated, even in XI | Modern |
| Setup effort | Minutes | Hours, then more hours | A minute |
Nagios Core is free and open source; Nagios XI is a commercial product with a licence fee. Kuma is free with no paid tier at all.
| Tier | Uptime Kuma | Nagios | MonitoringDaddy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free | Everything, MIT licence | Nagios Core — free, but bare | – |
| Paid | None — there is no paid tier | Nagios XI — commercial licence, four figures for larger estates | – |
| What paid buys | n/a | A better interface, wizards, reporting, support | – |
| Real cost | A small VPS | Setup time, and someone who knows it | – |
| Feature | Uptime Kuma | Nagios | MonitoringDaddy |
|---|---|---|---|
| HTTP / endpoint checks | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Host and service metrics | No | Yes, via plugins and NRPE | No |
| Plugin library | No | Thousands, for almost anything | No |
| Configured by | Clicking | Editing files, or XI wizards | Clicking |
| Modern interface | Yes | No | Yes |
| Status page for customers | Yes, built in | Not really | Yes, with a custom domain |
| Alert integrations | Around ninety, built in | Scriptable — you often write it | Email, Slack, Teams, Discord, Telegram, Flock, webhooks |
| Community | Active and growing | Enormous but ageing | n/a — commercial |
| Time to first alert | Minutes | Hours | A minute |
| Still actively developed | Yes | Yes, though slower | Yes |
| Cron / scheduled job monitoring | Push monitors, yes | Possible, with work | Yes, same allowance |
| Page content change watching | No | No | Yes, same allowance |
| All check types on one allowance | No — separate products | No — separate tools | Yes |
A tick in a table hides most of the difference. This is what each row is really saying.
Nagios is configured in files, which version-control beautifully and are unforgiving to newcomers. Kuma is configured by clicking. For a team of one who already knows Nagios, files win. For anyone else joining, the clicking is why the monitoring stays current.
Two decades of Nagios plugins cover almost anything you can name, and this is the strongest remaining argument for a new Nagios installation. If your requirement is met by an existing plugin, that is real work you do not have to do.
Kuma speaks to today's chat tools out of the box. Nagios can reach them too, via a script you write and then own forever. It is a small job that somehow never gets done, and unrouted alerts are the same as no alerts.
Nagios Core is free and bare. XI is the commercial product with the wizards, reporting and support, licensed per node. Comparing Kuma to Core is a fair fight on price; comparing it to XI is not, and XI is what most organisations actually run.
Nagios is engineered for estates far larger than Kuma will ever handle, and that engineering is exactly why it is heavier to set up. If you have thirty endpoints, you are paying the complexity cost of a design meant for thousands.
Kuma includes one you can share with customers. Nagios does not really have an equivalent, which is why teams running Nagios often add something small alongside purely to have a page to point at during an incident.
This is the only argument that reliably favours Nagios for a new installation. If your monitoring depends on something obscure that a plugin already covers, that saves you writing it.
For endpoint monitoring the gap in setup effort is not close. Kuma will be alerting before a Nagios install is finished, and abandoning it costs nothing.
A configured Nagios that people trust is worth more than a tidier interface. Migrate when it is failing you, not because it looks old.
Kuma speaks to modern chat tools out of the box. Nagios usually needs a script for each one, which is a small job that never quite gets done.
You are monitoring endpoints, you want it working today, and nobody on the team wants to own a configuration-file-driven monitoring server.
You already run Nagios, need its plugin ecosystem, or work somewhere it is the established standard and that is not up for debate.
We overlap with the Kuma half of this and not at all with the Nagios half — no plugins, no agents, no host metrics. What we add over Kuma is being hosted, so the check comes from outside your infrastructure and survives it. Teams running Nagios often add exactly one external check for that reason.
Uptime, SSL expiry, domain expiry, API checks, cron heartbeats and page-change watching all draw on one allowance here, rather than being separate products or separate bills.
Start freeThe free plan sends to one email address. Every paid plan adds the chat and webhook channels below, with 2 to 10 destinations depending on the plan. However many alerts you receive, the price does not change — nothing here is metered or charged per alert.
There are no voice calls and no SMS. If a phone call at 3am is a hard requirement, say so before you subscribe — we would rather tell you now than refund you later.
For large estates with existing Nagios expertise and plugin dependencies, yes. For someone starting fresh to watch some websites and APIs, it is far more machinery than the job needs.
Only for the endpoint-checking part. If your Nagios installation monitors disks, services and hardware through agents and plugins, Kuma does none of that and never will.
Core is the free open-source engine, configured through files. XI is the commercial product on top, with a nicer interface, wizards and support, licensed per node.
Kuma, decisively. It ships integrations for the tools teams actually use. Nagios can reach the same places but usually via a script you write and then own.
No. Kuma is happy with tens or low hundreds of checks. Nagios is built for estates several orders of magnitude larger, and that engineering is why it is heavier.
Yes, and it is common — Nagios for infrastructure depth, Kuma for a clear endpoint view and a status page that can be shared without embarrassment.
Last updated August 2026 · Written by Amit Gupta, founder of MonitoringDaddy