Compare › Healthchecks.io
RunVouch vs Healthchecks.io
Healthchecks.io is the reference dead man's switch for cron jobs. RunVouch starts where a ping ends: did the job do the work, and what did it cost?
| Healthchecks.io | RunVouch | |
|---|---|---|
| Missed / late run alerts | yes | yes |
| Failure with stderr excerpt | via /fail ping | yes, with rv run or the same /fail ping |
| Evidence the task was actually done | no | yes, file / URL / assertion |
| Retry-storm (loop) detection | no | yes |
| Cost and token caps | no | yes, per run and per day |
| Output/duration drift | no | yes |
| Claude Code plugin / MCP server | no | yes |
| Self-host | yes (BSD) | yes (MIT) |
| Price | free 20 checks; $20/mo for 100, $80 for 1000 | free 3 agents; $19 / $99 |
When to use which
Use Healthchecks.io for classic cron jobs where "it ran" is enough. Use RunVouch when the job is an agent or an LLM script: a green ping tells you nothing about whether the report was written or whether the agent spent $60 looping on a missing file. Many teams run both.
Other comparisons
vs Cronitor: Ops monitoring vs agent monitoring. vs Langfuse: Tracing vs watchdog, complementary. vs Dead Man's Snitch: Heartbeat vs heartbeat plus outcome. Not sure which category you need at all? Start at observability, a heartbeat, or a watchdog, or see all comparisons.