Best Alternative to Bruno for API Testing

DevTools, Insomnia, and Hoppscotch are the three alternatives to Bruno worth comparing for API testing, and each answers a different reason for leaving. Bruno itself is open source and keeps data local, with no account needed to open a collection. DevTools chains multiple requests into one CI run with auto-mapped variables and JUnit reports; Insomnia adds a GUI with wider protocol support and its own Inso CLI; and Hoppscotch runs in a browser with no desktop install. Pick DevTools for CI-heavy, multi-step test suites, Insomnia for a GUI-first team that wants more protocols than REST, and Hoppscotch for a lightweight, browser-based client.

Why teams look beyond Bruno

Bruno bills itself as the Git-native API client. It is open source and keeps data on the machine that runs it, with no account or cloud sync needed to open a collection. Bruno's own GitHub repository lists a CLI, a Docker image for CI, and paid commercial tiers for teams that want support.

None of that is a defect. Teams look at alternatives for reasons that are about fit, not a gap in Bruno itself: a GUI with built-in protocol coverage beyond REST and GraphQL, a hosted workspace for non-engineers on the team, or a CI runner built around chained requests instead of one request at a time. The three alternatives below each answer one of those fit questions.

DevTools: for git-committed, multi-step API tests in CI

DevTools does the same core job as Bruno, recording and running API requests, but builds around chains of requests instead of one request at a time. It records real traffic, auto-maps variables between steps, and runs end-to-end API tests in CI with parallel execution and JUnit reports. That auto-mapping is DevTools' own way of chaining requests: it carries a value from one response into the next request's input on its own, inside the same CI run that produces the JUnit report.

Like Bruno, a DevTools flow is a YAML file that lives in the repository next to the code it tests, so a changed request shows up as a normal diff in a pull request instead of a UI-only change. The CI story is built for the multi-step case: a flow chains several requests together, runs them in CI with parallel execution, and emits a JUnit report the same pipeline step already reads. For a team whose test suite already looks like several chained requests, log in, create a resource, read it back, delete it, that is the difference that matters more than any single feature checkbox.

DevTools is a narrower answer than a full GUI client: it does not replace the point-and-click request builder that Bruno, Insomnia, and Hoppscotch each offer for poking at an API by hand. It targets the automated test-suite side of the job, not ad-hoc, one-off requests.

Insomnia: for a multi-protocol GUI with its own CI path

Insomnia keeps the GUI-first workflow Bruno also offers, but widens where and how a collection can live. It has an open-source edition and a free tier, and gives a team the choice to store collections locally, sync them through Git, or sync them to the cloud. Bruno, by contrast, only offers the local and Git-committed options: its own site describes it as local and secure, with data that never leaves the machine running it.

For CI, Insomnia ships its own command-line tool, the Inso CLI, built to run collections and unlock CI/CD automation outside the desktop app. That is Insomnia's answer to the same problem DevTools and Bruno's CLI both solve, run requests in a pipeline instead of by hand, but from a GUI-first tool instead of a code-first one. That range covers more protocols than REST and GraphQL inside one client.

Insomnia suits a team that wants one client covering more than REST and GraphQL, with a cloud option available for non-engineers on the team, and is willing to trade some of Bruno's plain-text simplicity for that range.

Hoppscotch: for a browser-based, open-source client

Hoppscotch takes a different shape from both Bruno and Insomnia: it runs in a browser instead of a desktop install. Its own site describes it as an open-source API development ecosystem, and it is the usual browser-based pick when a team wants a Bruno alternative.

Hoppscotch's own site says little beyond that headline, so this piece claims no more than the core shape: an open-source client that runs in a browser first. A team drawn to that shape over Bruno's desktop-only model should check current self-hosting and account requirements on Hoppscotch's site before committing.

Which Bruno alternative fits your team

The choice comes down to which fit question matters most. A team whose real test suite is a chain of requests, log in, act, verify, clean up, and that wants that chain running in CI with a report a pipeline already parses, is the case DevTools is built for. A team that wants one GUI client covering more protocols than REST and GraphQL, with the option of a cloud-synced workspace for teammates who do not want to touch Git, fits Insomnia. A team that wants an open-source client with no desktop install fits Hoppscotch, after a direct check of its current self-hosting and account details.

None of the three is a strict upgrade over Bruno's own model: Bruno's open-source, local-only, no-account approach is still the right fit for a team that has no reason to leave it. The three alternatives above matter for the teams whose reason to leave is one of the specific gaps above, chained CI tests, wider protocol coverage, or a browser-only client, and not a general complaint about Bruno itself.

Frequently asked questions

Why do some teams pick Bruno over Postman?

Bruno's own site positions it around two traits: open-source code, and local-only storage where data never leaves the machine running it. Teams that want an open-source, local-only alternative with no hosted account look at Bruno for those two reasons.

Does Insomnia store collections in Git the way Bruno does?

Insomnia gives a team a choice Bruno does not: store collections locally, sync them through Git, or sync them to the cloud. Bruno only offers the first two, local files committed to Git by hand, with no built-in cloud sync.

Is DevTools a drop-in replacement for Bruno, or does it work differently?

It works differently by design: DevTools is built around chains of multiple requests with auto-mapped variables between steps, run in CI with parallel execution and JUnit reports, instead of a single request opened by hand in a GUI like Bruno's. It is not a drop-in replacement for poking at an API by hand; it targets the automated test-suite side of the job.

Bruno remains a solid pick for a team that wants an open-source, local-only API client with no account. DevTools, Insomnia, and Hoppscotch each fit a specific gap beyond that: chained CI tests, wider GUI protocol coverage, or a browser-only open-source client. Match the tool to the actual gap.