whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Uptime Monitoring & Status Pages

Better Stack Uptime

Rest of world Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: 1 of 6 dimensions proven

0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.

by Better Stack, Inc. · betterstack.com

Compare with UptimeRobot → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

Better Stack Uptime: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai Better Stack Uptime: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai (dark)

Add ?theme=dark to the image address for dark backgrounds. The badge shows the category and the month of the latest evaluation, and EU-Made where that is the product’s provenance. It never shows a score.

Better Stack Uptime at a glance

Vendor
Better Stack, Inc.
Headquarters
Incorporated in United States source, captured 1 Nov 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
Free plan
Yes, per the vendor’s own page source, captured 1 Nov 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates Better Stack Uptime 2.5/5, the mean of 6 judges. Better Stack Uptime is strongest on alerting and on-call, where scores reach 9, and on checks and locations, where they reach 8: ten monitor types at a fastest 30-second interval, an incident created only after a failure from at least 3 of at least 4 default locations, and escalation policies, follow-the-sun schedules and voice, SMS, e-mail, Slack, Teams and push alerts under all-you-can-alert pricing. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 1 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 2 Nov 2026. all sources

Better Stack Uptime alternatives, European ones first →

Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.

The Skeptic

Weighted verdict

Has seen "30-second checks from 20 locations" that paged the whole team for a single probe's network glitch, a status page that went down with the product it reported on, and "unlimited SMS" with a fair-use clause on page nine. Asks how a failure is confirmed, how long the history is kept and whether it can be exported, where the monitor itself publishes its own outages — and what leaving would cost.

Same scores as the panel view — this lens weights them the way this judge cares.

Scored by The Skeptic

Panel median The Skeptic This judge’s scores over the panel median. Each label opens its reasoning below.
Scores per criterion, in stars out of 5
Criterion Panel median The Skeptic
Checks, locations & failure confirmation 4 of 5 0 of 5
Alerting, escalation & on-call 4.5 of 5 0 of 5
Status pages & incident communication 3.5 of 5 0 of 5
API, monitoring as code & team administration 3.5 of 5 0 of 5
Uptime reports, data & the vendor's own reliability 3 of 5 0 of 5
European sovereignty 2 of 5 0 of 5
Pricing transparency 2.5 of 5 0 of 5

Checks, locations & failure confirmation

How this is scored

What can be monitored and how reliably a failure is detected: HTTP(S) with status code and keyword checks, TCP and port, ping, DNS records, SSL certificate and domain expiry, cron jobs and heartbeats, multi-step API checks with assertions, browser or transaction checks of a login or checkout, the shortest check interval, the number and regions of probe locations, the re-check from a second location before an alert, timeouts and response time thresholds, and private locations inside the customer's own network.

0 — Runs no checks of its own; a status page or alerting tool that only receives signals from other monitors.

3 — HTTP checks of a URL at a fixed interval with an up or down result; keyword, SSL, cron and the probe locations are basic or not described.

5 — HTTP(S), keyword, TCP or port, ping and SSL expiry checks, cron or heartbeat monitoring, an interval of one minute or less, several named probe locations, a failure confirmed from a second location before alerting, and response times recorded per check.

8 — Multi-step API checks with assertions on headers and body, browser or transaction checks of a user flow, DNS and domain expiry checks, sub-minute intervals, probe locations listed by city with the confirmation logic documented, private locations or agents for internal services, and maintenance windows that pause checks.

10 — Coverage and accuracy a reliability team runs on: every check type above with code-based checks (for example Playwright or scripted tests) in version control, location-specific thresholds, false-positive handling and probe health published, and the detection method documented so a result can be reproduced.

Report an error

The Skeptic

Ten documented monitor types from uptime and keyword to DNS, domain expiry, SSL and TCP/UDP port, plus hosted Playwright browser checks at 30-second intervals, is broader coverage than most vendors publish. What earns the score is that the confirmation logic is written down: an incident is created only after a check fails from at least three locations out of a default of four, with an explicit warning that removing locations raises false positives. I still get no probe cities, no description of what an API monitor may assert on headers or body, and private-network monitoring is a heading rather than a documented agent or probe. 2 6 8 13 14

Report an error

Alerting, escalation & on-call

How this is scored

How the right person learns about a failure: alert channels (email, SMS, phone call, push app, Slack, Microsoft Teams, Telegram, webhooks), alerts to PagerDuty, Opsgenie or similar tools, escalation policies when an alert is not acknowledged, on-call schedules and rotations, acknowledge and resolve from the app, alert grouping and noise reduction, recovery notifications, maintenance windows that mute alerts, and whether SMS and calls are included or charged per message.

0 — No alerting at all; results can only be viewed in the dashboard.

3 — Email alerts and one or two chat integrations; escalation, phone calls and schedules are basic or not described.

5 — Email, SMS, a mobile push app, Slack, Microsoft Teams and webhooks, alerts forwarded to PagerDuty or Opsgenie, per-monitor alert contacts, recovery notifications, a delay or threshold before alerting, and maintenance windows that mute alerts.

8 — Phone call alerts, escalation policies with timeouts, on-call schedules and rotations with overrides, acknowledge and resolve from the app or chat, alert grouping, incident timelines with who did what, and the price of SMS and calls stated per country or included in the plan.

10 — On-call that replaces a separate incident tool: follow-the-sun schedules, escalation across teams, alert routing by service and severity, post-incident reviews generated from the timeline, and delivery of every alert channel monitored and reported.

Report an error

The Skeptic

Escalation policies with steps, delays, re-alerting and fallback, follow-the-sun regional schedules with overrides and cover requests, acknowledge-and-resolve inside Slack or Teams, severity- and metadata-based routing, smart incident merging and post-mortems drafted from the incident timeline — that is nearly a standalone incident tool. Voice, SMS, e-mail, Slack, Teams and push are all listed under 'all-you-can-alert pricing', but the terms reserve the right to set quotas on resource use, and I found no public information on whether delivery of each channel is itself monitored and reported. 2 4 8 9 15 16

Report an error

Status pages & incident communication

How this is scored

How customers and colleagues are told: public status pages on a custom domain with SSL, components and component groups fed automatically by monitors or set by hand, incident updates and scheduled maintenance announcements, subscribers notified by email, SMS, RSS or webhook, uptime history shown per component, private or password-protected pages for internal teams or single customers, branding and custom CSS, several languages, page templates, and how the status page itself stays online when the main product is down.

0 — No status page of any kind.

3 — A public status page listing monitors with their current state; custom domain, incident updates and subscribers are basic or not described.

5 — Public status pages on a custom domain, components linked to monitors, incident updates and scheduled maintenance, email subscribers, uptime history per component, the vendor's branding removable, and a password-protected or private page option.

8 — Component groups, SMS, RSS and webhook subscribers with per-component subscriptions, private pages with single sign-on or IP restriction, several languages, incident templates, embeddable status widgets, audience-specific pages for single customers, and the status page hosting kept separate from the main service and documented.

10 — Incident communication end to end: incidents drafted from monitor events and approved by a person, updates published to the page, subscribers, chat and social channels at once, a full incident archive with post-mortems, status page uptime published, and accessibility of the page stated.

Report an error

The Skeptic

Custom domain by CNAME, sections grouping monitors, heartbeats and third-party services, incident and maintenance templates, per-component e-mail subscriptions, password-, SSO- and IP-allowlist-protected private pages, translations in beta, embeddable badges and announcements, and CSS plus JavaScript customization make a serious page. Subscriber channels beyond e-mail are not described, however, and the captured pages say nothing about how the status page itself stays online if the vendor's own service goes down. 3 8 17 18

Report an error

API, monitoring as code & team administration

How this is scored

How the tool fits a team and a deployment pipeline: a documented REST API to create and read monitors, status pages and incidents, a Terraform provider, CLI or monitoring-as-code workflow, checks run from CI/CD before a deploy, bulk import of monitors, integrations with ticketing and chat tools, team members with roles, single sign-on (SAML) and SCIM, audit logs, several teams or client accounts in one organisation, white-label or client reporting for agencies, and two-factor authentication.

0 — No API, no team accounts; one login per account and monitors are set up only by hand.

3 — A web dashboard with a few team members; the API, roles and multi-client set-up are basic or not described.

5 — A documented REST API covering monitors and status pages, webhooks, team members with roles, two-factor authentication, bulk import or a CSV upload of monitors, and several projects, teams or client groups in one account.

8 — A Terraform provider or monitoring-as-code CLI with checks kept in version control, checks triggered from CI/CD, single sign-on (SAML), SCIM provisioning, audit logs, sub-accounts for clients with their own logins, and white-label client reports.

10 — Administration that scales across many teams and clients: every setting reachable by API and code with parity stated, granular roles per resource, SSO enforced with SCIM, audit logs exportable to a SIEM, and agency or reseller accounts with separate billing.

Report an error

The Skeptic

A JSON:API REST API documented across monitors, heartbeats, incidents, status pages, metadata, team members, organization roles and usage, with team-scoped and global bearer tokens, plus Terraform management, SAML SSO for Okta, Azure and Google, and Okta SCIM with group push that creates teams — the administration story is real and current. I found no public information on audit logs, two-factor authentication, bulk monitor import or white-label client reports, which keeps it a rung below the top. 5 6 7 19 20

Report an error

Uptime reports, data & the vendor's own reliability

How this is scored

What the record is worth and whether the monitor itself can be trusted: uptime and SLA reports per monitor and period, response time charts and percentiles, scheduled reports by email, client-facing reports, how long check results and incident history are kept, export of results by CSV or API, the vendor's own public status page and incident history, its SLA, the probe IP addresses and user agent published for allow-listing, and an open-source or self-hosted edition.

0 — No history of any kind; only the current state is shown.

3 — An uptime percentage and a response time chart per monitor; retention, export and the vendor's own status are basic or not described.

5 — Uptime and response time reports per monitor and period, SLA reports, scheduled email reports, the retention period of check results stated, CSV or API export, the probe IPs published, and the vendor's own public status page.

8 — Response time percentiles and breakdowns (DNS, connect, TLS, first byte), client-ready branded reports, retention of a year or more stated per plan, a raw export of check results, the vendor's incident history and post-mortems public, and an SLA with credits published.

10 — A record that holds up in an audit: SLA calculations with their method stated, incident records suitable for ISO 27001, NIS2 or DORA evidence, full history exportable in an open format, a self-hosted or open-source edition with feature parity stated, and the vendor's own availability over several years published.

Report an error

The Skeptic

Compound SLA reports across selected monitors, MTTA and MTTR, on-call and response-effort reports with metadata and resource-group filters, CSV export that honours the filters plus a live shareable CSV URL, response times retrievable by API, and the monitoring IP addresses and User-Agent published in the FAQs — the record is genuinely exportable. But retention is stated only for logs at 30 days and errors at 90 days, never for check results themselves; there is no SLA with credits, no public incident history or post-mortems from the vendor, and its own availability is evidenced only by a 'System status' footer line. 4 8 14 21 22

Report an error

European sovereignty

How this is scored

Who the contracting entity and the parent company are, where account data, alert contacts (names and phone numbers of the people on call), status page subscribers and check results are stored and processed, and who the subprocessors are (hosting, SMS and phone gateways, email delivery, support and payment tools). Independently sourced by the sovereignty pipeline. Probe locations outside Europe are part of what the product does and are not counted against it; where the data is stored and who processes it is. A self-hosted or open-source edition the customer runs on its own European servers counts as the customer's chain, whatever the vendor's seat.

0 — Non-EU vendor and contracting entity, hosting unstated, subprocessors unnamed, and no data processing agreement offered.

3 — A privacy policy and a data processing agreement exist, but hosting location is unstated or non-EU and the subprocessors are not listed.

5 — EU hosting available and an EU contracting entity or EU representative, but parts of the chain (SMS and call gateways, email, support, payment) run through non-EU providers without a stated safeguard.

8 — EU hosting on named infrastructure, EU contracting entity, subprocessors listed with their locations, a data processing agreement published, and security certifications (ISO 27001, SOC 2) stated — or a self-hosted edition documented that keeps every record on the customer's own servers.

10 — Sovereign end to end and evidenced: European ownership, entity, hosting and every subprocessor, or a self-hosted open-source edition with no call home, data export and deletion documented, and certifications published with their scope rather than implied.

Report an error

The Skeptic

The contracting entity is Better Stack, Inc., a Delaware corporation under New York law and courts; the privacy policy says personal data is processed 'primarily in the European Union' while the data processing agreement permits transfers to the United States under the Data Privacy Framework and standard contractual clauses. A DPA is published, a subprocessor list is maintained online, and SOC2 Type 2 is stated, but we found no public information on an EU contracting entity or EU representative, and subprocessor locations beyond the United States are not itemised. 9 10 11 12

Report an error

Pricing transparency

How this is scored

Whether a buyer can compute the real annual cost from public pages alone: price per tier by number of monitors, check interval and status pages, team seats and on-call responders, what SMS and phone alerts cost, which features (multi-step or browser checks, SSO, longer retention, private locations, white-label) cost extra, the free tier and its limits, overage handling, minimum term and VAT.

0 — No public prices at all; every customer is a sales call.

3 — A starting price or a free tier exists, but how cost scales with monitors, intervals, seats or alerts is unclear.

5 — Tiers are public with their monitor count, interval and main inclusions, but at least one commonly needed piece (SMS or call alerts, extra seats, extra status pages, SSO, longer retention) is unpriced or "on request".

8 — Every tier priced publicly with its scaling rule (monitors, interval, seats, responders, status pages), SMS and call costs stated, add-ons priced, overage handling stated, minimum term and VAT treatment stated.

10 — Complete price computability: annual cost derivable for a given number of monitors, interval, team size and alert volume, with every add-on, overage and support fee and the cancellation and data-return terms published.

Report an error

The Skeptic

The free tier is fully specified — ten monitors, one status page, 100,000 exceptions — and add-ons carry exact unit prices: Single Sign-On with Okta or Azure at $5 per user per month, Playwright minutes at $1 per 100 minutes, additional exceptions at $0.000050 each, with taxes stated exclusive of VAT. But no paid uptime tier price or monitor-scaling rule appears on the captured pricing page and enterprise is a custom quote, so a real annual cost cannot be computed; 'all-you-can-alert' pricing sits beside terms reserving the right to set quotas, and the captured pages give different pictures of refunds — a 60-day money-back guarantee on the pricing page against terms stating no refund is owed. 2 8 9

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

1 of 6 dimensions proven

Built only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.

Hosting location Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Hosting options Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Open source Not determined — uncited Report an error
Data processing agreement Not determined ⚠ unverified — uncited Report an error
Transfer impact assessment Not determined — uncited Report an error

Questions about Better Stack Uptime

Is Better Stack Uptime European?

No. whats-best.ai classifies Better Stack Uptime as Rest of world. Its vendor, Better Stack, Inc., is incorporated in United States, per the vendor’s page captured 1 Nov 2026.

Where does Better Stack Uptime store data?

Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026.

Does Better Stack Uptime have a free plan?

Yes. Better Stack Uptime has a free plan, per the vendor’s page captured 1 Nov 2026.

What are the best alternatives to Better Stack Uptime?

As of 2 Nov 2026, the panel rates Hyperping (3.5/5), Checkly (3.5/5) and openstatus (3.5/5) highest among the other 14 Uptime Monitoring & Status Pages products evaluated. Ratings that look equal are rounded to half stars; the order uses the unrounded rating, then the name. The highest-rated European alternative is Hyperping (EU-Made). Ratings are the AI panel’s opinion, formed from public evidence: how scores are made. The full list, with European products first: Better Stack Uptime alternatives.

Where this could be wrong

What we left out

A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.

Do you know more about Better Stack Uptime? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (23)

The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.

  1. 1 Vendor homepage betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Features page (uptime monitoring) betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Features page (status pages) betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Features page (incident management and on-call) betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  5. 5 Documentation betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  6. 6 Documentation (cron and heartbeat monitoring) betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  7. 7 API documentation betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Pricing page betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Terms of service betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Privacy policy betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Data processing agreement (dpa) betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Security / trust page betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Checks, locations & failure confirmation — found from sitemap betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  14. 14 Checks, locations & failure confirmation — found from sitemap betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  15. 15 Alerting, escalation & on-call — found from sitemap betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  16. 16 Alerting, escalation & on-call — found from sitemap betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  17. 17 Status pages & incident communication — found from sitemap betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  18. 18 Status pages & incident communication — found from sitemap betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  19. 19 API, monitoring as code & team administration — found from sitemap betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  20. 20 API, monitoring as code & team administration — found from sitemap betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  21. 21 Uptime reports, data & the vendor's own reliability — found from sitemap betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  22. 22 Uptime reports, data & the vendor's own reliability — found from sitemap betterstack.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  23. 23 Code repository (open-source licence) — found from the homepage github.com Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →