Does uptime-kuma run?

Yes. uptime-kuma runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 25 minutes, hitting 4 errors on the way, and recorded the session.

How did Argusic test uptime-kuma?

On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit db57bf1106ed. 3 attempts are recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.

What did it cost to test uptime-kuma?

The run that produced this verdict cost $0.04: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.

How long does uptime-kuma take to install?

25 minutes in the run that decided this verdict, from a clean machine to a running state. That is one measured attempt, not an average.

Does uptime-kuma need a GPU?

Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.

What goes wrong when installing uptime-kuma?

4 things broke in the recorded run, and 1 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.

Where is the evidence for uptime-kuma?

All 3 recorded runs are on this page, each linking to its full log and terminal recording, stored with a sha256 fingerprint so it cannot be quietly altered.

uptime-kuma

A fancy self-hosted monitoring tool

Runssource: GitHub homepageJavaScriptMITcommit db57bf1106ed

JavaScript, MIT licensed. The project labels itself: docker, monitor, monitoring, responsive, self hosted, selfhosted, single page app and socket io.

uptime-kuma runs. An Argusic agent installed it in 25 minutes and hit 4 errors on a clean machine with no GPU, and the whole session was recorded.

Uptime Kuma 2.5.3 starts on Node.js 22, listens on port 3001, serves the setup page over HTTP, and passes 196 of 242 backend tests; 38 tests fail solely due to missing Docker and missing ping binary in the container sandbox
What the agent ended up with on a clean machine, in its own words. How this is measured

Measured by Argusic on a fresh machine every time. Every number links to its evidence. Argusic Score 64 of 100 (the mean of this project's run scores).

At a glance

verdict: Runs
Argusic Score: 64 / 100
cost of the verifying run: $0.04 (measured)
recorded runs: 3
last tested: 2026-09-20
stars: 91,663
forks: 8,455
open issues: 817
watchers: 319
size: 38 MB
created: 2021-07-03
last push: 2026-09-22

Subject data from GitHub, linked at the top of this page, refreshed 2026-09-22. Test data by Argusic (CC BY 4.0); every number links to a run page with the full log, the recording, and their sha256 hashes.

What was measured

From the run that decided this verdict. Every line is a recorded value, not an estimate.

Time lost to each failure while testing uptime-kuma, drawn from the recorded run — Every bar is a failure the agent recorded, with the time it cost. Drawn from this run, not from anywhere else.

What went wrong, in the agent's own words

The agent's own words, worst first, never rewritten into advice.

Node.js 18 (default) below the engine requirement of >=20.4 for the [email protected] ESM package; require() of ESM module fails at startup6 minutes
ping binary not available in container; 3 pingAsync tests fail expecting real ping output
No Docker runtime in container; 33 tests requiring testcontainers (MQTT, MSSQL, MySQL, Oracle, Postgres, RabbitMQ, SNMP, migration) cannot start containerized services
Missing @testcontainers/hivemq dev dependency causes migration test module to fail to load

Install time: 25 minutes
Cold machine to finish: 10 minutes
Errors hit and fixed: 4 hit, 1 fixed with no human help
How the result was proved: node server/server.js started and curl -s -o /dev/null -w '%{http_code}' http://localhost:3001/ returned 200; npm run test-backend-22: 196 passed, 38 failed out of 242 total
Model tokens used: 58,975
Exact commit tested: db57bf1106ed
Container image: sha256:cdd920bce783

What was not measured

The other half, so you can see exactly how far this evidence goes. A gap is printed as a gap and never filled in.

Peak GPU memory: this ran on a CPU machine, so there was no GPU to sample
Behaviour over a long run: each attempt uses the smallest documented settings and a fixed time budget, so this measures whether it runs, not how it holds up under load

The end of the recording

The last lines of the terminal session that decided this verdict, exactly as they were recorded.

✔ Monitor response saving (30.350719ms)
✔ NTPMonitorType (50.520086ms)
exec
/bin/sh -lc 'pkill -f "node server/server.js" 2>/dev/null; sleep 1; echo "cleaned"' in /work/repo
 exited 143 in 0ms:
Now I have all the data I need. Let me compile the final assessment
exec
/bin/sh -lc 'cd /work/repo && export PATH="/home/runner/n/bin:$PATH" && kill $(lsof -ti:3001) 2>/de…
 succeeded in 856ms:
ports freed
tokens used
58,975

Replay the whole session, every command from a clean machine to this point.

How it was tested

One agent, one container, no human help. It installs the project the way its own documentation says to, runs it, and fixes what breaks. Everything below is recorded as it happened: the terminal session, the log and the exact commit. The full method.

Strengths and limits

Measured facts, not opinions. How this is written.

What went well

Reached a running state on a clean machine, with the session recorded.
Ran without a GPU, so it does not need one to start.
Licensed MIT, as reported by its host.
Measured 3 times, so the result is not a one-off.

What did not, or is not known

Took 25 minutes to install, slower than the median of the 8 comparable projects Argusic has measured.
Hit 4 errors during setup, 3 of which were not solved.

Of the 9 docker projects Argusic has installed and timed, uptime-kuma was the 7th fastest to reach a running state, and 8 of 9 reached one at all.

What it is a reasonable choice for

Trying it on a laptop or a small server: it reached a running state without a GPU.

Also tested, in the same area

Every one of these was installed and run by Argusic on a clean machine. Nothing appears here that was not tested.

Run history

tested by	attempt	outcome	score	cost USD	when
Argusic Runner	3/3	Did not run	20.00	0.00	2026-09-20 13:16 UTC
Argusic Runner	2/3	Runs	85.00	0.04	2026-09-13 19:26 UTC
Argusic Runner	1/3	Runs with mocks	87.00	0.06	2026-09-03 08:12 UTC

Topics (from GitHub)

docker monitor monitoring responsive self-hosted selfhosted single-page-app socket-io uptime uptime-monitoring webapp websocket

Embed the badge

Markdown for the project README. It links back here; terms on the terms page.

[![Tested by Argusic](https://argusic.com/badge/uptime-kuma.svg)](https://argusic.com/subject/uptime-kuma)

Questions

Does uptime-kuma run?: Yes. uptime-kuma runs. Argusic installed and launched it on a clean machine in 25 minutes, hitting 4 errors on the way, and recorded the session.
How did Argusic test uptime-kuma?: On a fresh, disposable machine, with every command recorded and the repository pinned at commit db57bf1106ed. 3 attempts are recorded, and the full method is on the methodology page.
What did it cost to test uptime-kuma?: The run that produced this verdict cost $0.04: real compute and model cost, not a list price per million tokens. It is recorded on that run's page.
How long does uptime-kuma take to install?: 25 minutes in the run that decided this verdict, from a clean machine to a running state. That is one measured attempt, not an average.
Does uptime-kuma need a GPU?: Not to start. Argusic reached a running state on a machine with no GPU.
What goes wrong when installing uptime-kuma?: 4 things broke in the recorded run, and 1 were fixed without human help. Each one, and the time it cost, is listed on this page.
How does uptime-kuma compare with the alternatives?: Of the 9 docker projects Argusic has installed and timed, uptime-kuma was the 7th fastest to reach a running state, and 8 of 9 reached one at all.
Where is the evidence for uptime-kuma?: All 3 recorded runs are on this page, each linking to its full log and terminal recording, stored with a sha256 fingerprint so it cannot be quietly altered.