Skip to main content

Bruno vs Postman: Which API Client Should You Choose?

 

As API testing becomes more central to modern software development, the tools we use to test, automate, and debug APIs can make a big difference. For years, Postman has been the go-to API client for developers and testers alike. But now, Bruno, a relatively new open-source API client, is making waves in the community.

Let’s break down how Bruno compares to Postman and why you might consider switching or using both depending on your use case.

✨ What is Bruno?

Bruno is an open-source, Git-friendly API client built for developers and testers who prefer simplicity, speed, and local-first development. It stores your API collections as plain text in your repo, making it easy to version, review, and collaborate on API definitions.

🌟 What is Postman?

Postman is a full-fledged API platform that offers everything from API testing, documentation, and automation to mock servers and monitoring. It comes with a polished UI, robust integration, and support for collaboration across teams.

🧵 Key Differences

Feature

Bruno

Postman

Platform

Desktop app

Web & desktop app

Open Source

✅ Yes

❌ No (Commercial SaaS)

Data Storage

Local file-based (YAML/JSON)

Cloud or local workspace

Git Friendly

✅ Excellent

❌ Limited

Performance

🚀 Very fast, lightweight

🐢 Can be heavy at times

Team Collaboration

Git-based workflows

Cloud collaboration via Postman

Automation / CI/CD

Git + CLI workflows

Newman + Postman cloud integrations

Mock Servers / Docs

❌ Not available yet

✅ Built-in

Pricing

Free

Freemium (limits in free tier)

🔍 Use Case Scenarios

  • Use Bruno if:
    • You prefer Git-based workflows.
    • You want to keep API test cases under version control.
    • You work offline or locally most of the time.
    • You prioritize speed and minimalism.
  • Use Postman if:
    • You need advanced API management features (mocking, monitoring).
    • You work in a team and need built-in cloud collaboration.
    • You want a full API lifecycle platform with UI-rich interactions.

🧪 From a QA Perspective

For testers who:

  • Use Git for source control and automation,
  • Need to integrate API tests into CI/CD,
  • Prefer lightweight tools,

Bruno is a strong, developer-friendly alternative.

However, for larger QA teams relying on:

  • Built-in environments,
  • Global variables,
  • Mock servers and monitors,

Postman still offers more features out of the box.

🧠 Final Thoughts

Bruno isn’t here to kill Postman—it’s here to offer freedom and control. In fact, many testers may find a hybrid approach useful: use Postman for collaboration-heavy work and Bruno for Git-based workflows and automation.

If you're tired of syncing Postman collections manually or just want a snappy alternative, give Bruno a spin.

 

Labels

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The use of Verbose attribute in testNG or POM.xml (maven-surefire-plugin)

At times, we see some weird behavior in your testNG execution and feel that the information displayed is insufficient and would like to see more details. At other times, the output on the console is too verbose and we may want to only see the errors. This is where a verbose attribute can help you- it is used to define the amount of logging to be performed on the console. The verbosity level is 0 to 10, where 10 is most detailed. Once you set it to 10, you'll see that console output will contain information regarding the tests, methods, and listeners, etc. <suite name="Suite" thread-count="5" verbose="10"> Note* You can specify -1 and this will put TestNG in debug mode. The default level is 0. Alternatively, you can set the verbose level through attribute in "maven-surefire-plugin" in pom.xml, as shown in the image. #testNG #automationTesting #verbose # #testAutomation
Post a Comment
Read more

How to Unzip files in Selenium (Java)?

1) Using Java (Lengthy way) : Create a utility and use it:>> import java.io.BufferedOutputStream; import org.openqa.selenium.io.Zip; import java.io.File; import java.io.FileInputStream; import java.io.FileOutputStream; import java.io.IOException; import java.util.zip.ZipEntry; import java.util.zip.ZipInputStream;   public class UnzipUtil {     private static final int BUFFER_SIZE = 4096;     public void unzip (String zipFilePath, String destDirectory) throws IOException {         File destDir = new File(destDirectory);         if (!destDir.exists()) {             destDir.mkdir();         }         ZipInputStream zipIn = new ZipInputStream(new FileInputStream(zipFilePath));         ZipEntry entry = zipIn.getNextEntry();         // to iterates over entries in the zip folder         while (en...
Post a Comment
Read more

Stop Overengineering: Why Test IDs Beat AI-Powered Locator Intelligence for UI Automation

  We have all read the blogs. We have all seen the charts showing how Generative AI can "revolutionize" test automation by magically resolving locators, self-healing broken selectors, and interpreting UI changes on the fly. There are many articles that paints a compelling picture of a future where tests maintain themselves. Cool story. But let’s take a step back. Why are we bending over backward to make tests smart enough to deal with ever-changing DOMs when there's a simpler, far more sustainable answer staring us in the face? -             Just use Test IDs. That’s it. That’s the post. But since blogs are supposed to be more than one sentence, let’s unpack this a bit. 1. Test IDs Never Lie (or Change) Good automation is about reliability and stability. Test IDs—like data-testid ="submit-button"—are predictable. They don’t break when a developer changes the CSS class, updates the layout, or renames an element. You know...
Post a Comment
Read more