Statping-ng vs Instatus
Both are alternatives to Atlassian Statuspage. Here's how they stack up — verified facts, no spin.
Also searched as Instatus vs Statping-ng — same comparison, one verdict.
Statping-ng is open source (GPL-3.0) and Instatus is not (Proprietary (hosted service)) — so the real question is whether you want to own the uptime & status monitoring stack or rent it.
Statping-ng
A self-hosted status page in one binary — but check the commit dates.
Statping-ng is the community continuation of Statping: a single Go binary that monitors services and renders a public status page, with no database server required for small deployments. GPL-3.0, and the design is genuinely nice. The reason it is ranked where it is rather than higher is a fact worth stating plainly: its last push was 2025-06-04, more than a year ago. That is not automatically disqualifying for a small, feature-complete tool, but unmaintained software that faces the public internet is a security decision rather than a convenience one, and anyone choosing it should do so knowingly.
Instatus
A fast, cheap status page that does the one job well.
Instatus is a focused competitor to Statuspage: fast pages, unlimited subscribers on paid plans rather than metered ones, custom domains, and a free tier that is genuinely usable. It is proprietary and hosted, and it is here because subscriber-metered pricing is the specific complaint that sends people looking, and Instatus's answer to it is to not meter subscribers. For a team that wants a customer-facing status page and does not want to self-host one, it is usually the cheaper straight swap.
Side by side
6 points of comparison, every one read from a verified field. Green marks the side that wins a row outright. A dash means we do not hold that fact — never that it is zero.
| Statping-ng | Instatus | |
|---|---|---|
| Sovereignty ScoreOur transparent 0–100 composite for data ownership and exit cost. | 78 | 44 |
| Open source | Yes | No |
| Self-hostable | Yes | No |
| Local-first data | Yes | No |
| License | GPL-3.0 | Proprietary (hosted service) |
| Pricing | Free and open source. One binary, no database server required for small setups. | Free tier with a usable feature set; paid plans are a flat monthly fee rather than per-subscriber. Checked 2026-08-01. |
Statping-ng edges it on the Sovereignty Score, but the right pick depends on the trade-offs below.
Weighing both against staying on Atlassian Statuspage? Is Atlassian Statuspage free? What it actually costs →
Statping-ng
Strengths
- +Single binary with a good-looking status page out of the box
- +No database server needed for small deployments
- +GPL-3.0 with no enterprise carve-out
- +Lightweight enough for the smallest VPS
Trade-offs
- −Last commit 2025-06-04 — effectively dormant, and it is internet-facing
- −Small community, so few answers when something breaks
- −Fewer notification integrations than Uptime Kuma
- −Uptime Kuma does everything it does and is actively maintained
Instatus
Strengths
- +Does not meter subscribers, which is Statuspage's sharpest cost edge
- +Very fast pages and a clean, modern design
- +Custom domains available on low tiers
- +Straight swap — migration is mostly re-entering components
Trade-offs
- −Proprietary and hosted; no self-host path
- −Smaller company than Atlassian, which matters to some procurement teams
- −Fewer integrations than Statuspage
- −Still a second tool if you already run Uptime Kuma
Which one fits you
The trade-offs above, turned into a decision. Find the line that describes your team.
Choose Statping-ng
if you want the source and the option to fork it, and you would rather run it on your own hardware, and your data should stay on machines you control.
Choose Instatus
if does not meter subscribers, which is Statuspage's sharpest cost edge.
Neither, yet
if both carry a real cost you should weigh first — last commit 2025-06-04 — effectively dormant, and it is internet-facing, and proprietary and hosted; no self-host path. If either of those is a dealbreaker for your team, the shortlist is wrong rather than the choice.
Statping-ng vs Instatus — common questions
Is Statping-ng a better fit than Instatus for uptime & status monitoring?
It depends on what you are optimising for, and the honest split is this: Statping-ng scores 78 to Instatus's 44 on data ownership and exit cost, so it is the safer choice if you care about being able to leave. Instatus earns its place on a different axis — does not meter subscribers, which is Statuspage's sharpest cost edge. Neither is a wrong answer for every team; the table above is the actual comparison.
What happens if we want to switch later?
Statping-ng keeps its data local or in open formats, so leaving is an export rather than a negotiation. Instatus keeps your data on its own infrastructure, which is the part to plan for: confirm the export path before you commit, not when you are already trying to leave.
Can I self-host Statping-ng?
Statping-ng can be self-hosted; Instatus cannot, so it stays on the vendor's infrastructure whatever you do.
Are Statping-ng and Instatus both alternatives to Atlassian Statuspage?
Yes — both appear in our Atlassian Statuspage comparison, which is why they are worth putting side by side. People usually arrive here already having decided to move off Atlassian Statuspage and now choosing between the two replacements, which is a narrower and much easier question.
More uptime & status monitoring comparisons
Related alternative guides
Facts verified 2026-08-01. Licenses and pricing change — spotted something out of date? That's a correction we want.