whats-best.ai
Search Sign in

Uptime Monitoring & Status Pages

updown.io

EU-Made Report an error

Panel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars

Category median

Sovereignty: not determined

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

by Adrien Rey-Jarthon (EI) · updown.io

Report an error on this page Is this your product? →

Link to this page

updown.io: AI-assisted analysis on whats-best.ai updown.io: 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.

updown.io at a glance

Vendor
Adrien Rey-Jarthon (EI)
Headquarters
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
Data hosting
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
Free plan
Not stated on the vendor’s pages as of 1 Nov 2026
Panel verdict
The AI panel rates updown.io 3/5, the mean of 6 judges. updown.io is a bootstrapped uptime monitoring and status page service from Adrien Rey-Jarthon (EI), a French sole proprietorship since 2012. how scores are made
As of
Vendor pages captured 1 Nov 2026; evaluated by the panel 2 Nov 2026. all sources

updown.io 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 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Alerting, escalation & on-call 3 of 5 2.5 of 5
Status pages & incident communication 3 of 5 2.5 of 5
API, monitoring as code & team administration 2 of 5 2 of 5
Uptime reports, data & the vendor's own reliability 3 of 5 3 of 5
European sovereignty 3.5 of 5 3.5 of 5
Pricing transparency 4 of 5 3.5 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

HTTP(S) with keyword matching, TCP and port, ping, SSL expiry and domain expiry checks, plus push-based pulse monitoring, run from fifteen-second intervals out of ten named node cities with every probe IP published for firewall allow-listing. Failure confirmation is documented to my taste: a downtime needs three failed checks from at least two locations before anyone is paged, single-location checks are refused outright as false-positive-prone, and the vendor is candid that blips shorter than the check interval go unnotified. It stops short of the top band on coverage: no multi-step or browser-flow checks are described, DNS record checks sit under review as a feature request, and we found no public information on private probes inside a customer's own network. 1 5 6 10 11 12

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

Email, SMS, Slack, Teams, Telegram, webhooks and Zapier are documented, an Opsgenie integration appears as completed, recovery notices exist, still-down reminders deliberately skip SMS to spare the bill, and SMS is priced per message at 7500 credits (≈ 0.10€) rather than hidden behind a fair-use clause. But escalation and acknowledgement of alerts are, on the vendor's own pages, an open feature request — no escalation timeouts, no on-call schedules or rotations — and we found no public information on phone-call alerts or a mobile push app. 1 2 5 12 13

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

Public pages with a custom domain via CNAME, three visibility modes including a key- or password-protected option, white-label branding, design customization, localization and a ten-year history chart are all documented. What I could not find is the incident half of the story: we found no public information on incident updates, scheduled maintenance announcements, how subscribers are notified, or how the status page itself stays up when the main service is down. 2 3 5 14 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

The REST API carries this criterion: checks, downtimes, metrics, recipients and status pages are all reachable, with read-only keys for public dashboards, webhooks retried up to 25 times across several days, and client libraries in ten languages. The team side is single-login today — the captured pages give different signals on shared access, with multiple users described as not planned for the near future in one place and team accounts marked in progress with basic roles in another — and multiple API keys remain an open request; we found no public information on single sign-on, SCIM, audit logs, bulk import or a monitoring-as-code workflow. 2 5 16 17

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

There is a real record here: an uptime/downtime log, monthly and yearly SLA uptime numbers per check on a private details page, weekly scheduled reports, per-location latency timings, an export of detailed latency history marked done, probe IPs published under ips.updown.io, and a System Status page of the vendor's own. Retention is stated honestly — metrics aggregated from hourly to monthly as they age, downtime diagnostics deleted after three years — but report periods today stop at 24 hours and 7 days with monthly and yearly reports still under review, and we found no public information on percentiles, the vendor's own incident history or post-mortems, or an SLA with credits; the terms cap liability at what you paid and give no warranty on the correctness of collected data. 2 6 7 8 18 19

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 chain is unusually visible: a French sole proprietorship under French law, a DPA already in force without a signature, and every subprocessor named with a location and a transfer safeguard — hosting on OVH in France and Hetzner in Germany beside a US provider under the Data Privacy Framework and SCCs, SMS gateways in the US and Romania, email in the US and Belgium, payments in Ireland, Luxembourg and Lithuania. What keeps it off the top band: we found no public information on ISO 27001 or SOC 2 certification, and only some parts of the source code are open, with no self-hosted edition described. 7 8 9

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

Unusually computable for the core service: one credit equals one check, pricing scales linearly with the interval, six credit packs run from 5 € for 200,000 to 500 € for 60,000,000, SMS costs 7500 credits (≈ 0.10€) per message, pulse edge cases are priced down to telling you a disabled check still consumes credits, VAT is excluded and stated as such, and there is no commitment, no automatic charging, and refunds by email. The hole is the status page: we found no public information on what it costs, so the real annual price of a monitoring-plus-page set-up cannot be computed from the public pages alone. 1 4 7

Report an error

European sovereignty — proven facts

0 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 — 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 updown.io

Is updown.io European?

Yes. whats-best.ai classifies updown.io as EU-Made.

Where does updown.io store data?

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

Does updown.io have a free plan?

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

What are the best alternatives to updown.io?

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: updown.io 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 updown.io? Tell us Report an error on this page

Sources (19)

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

  1. 1 Vendor homepage (with pricing) updown.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  2. 2 Features page updown.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  3. 3 Documentation updown.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  4. 4 Documentation (cron monitoring) updown.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  5. 5 API documentation updown.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  6. 6 About page (monitoring nodes) updown.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  7. 7 Terms of service (names the operator) updown.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  8. 8 Privacy policy (with subprocessors) updown.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  9. 9 Data processing agreement (dpa) updown.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  10. 10 Checks, locations & failure confirmation — found from sitemap updown.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  11. 11 Checks, locations & failure confirmation — found from sitemap updown.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  12. 12 Alerting, escalation & on-call — found from sitemap updown.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  13. 13 Alerting, escalation & on-call — found from sitemap updown.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  14. 14 Status pages & incident communication — found from sitemap updown.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  15. 15 Status pages & incident communication — found from sitemap updown.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  16. 16 API, monitoring as code & team administration — found from sitemap updown.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  17. 17 API, monitoring as code & team administration — found from sitemap updown.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  18. 18 Uptime reports, data & the vendor's own reliability — found from sitemap updown.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →
  19. 19 Uptime reports, data & the vendor's own reliability — found from sitemap updown.io Checked 1 Nov 2026 Details →