Pick Bruno if your API tests should live in Git next to the code and be reviewed in pull requests, and pick Hoppscotch if you want a browser-first client where teammates share workspaces without touching Git. Both are open source. The split comes down to where a collection lives: as plain-text files in a folder for Bruno, and in a synced workspace for Hoppscotch. The sections below compare storage, sign-in, protocols, CI runs and migration, then say which team each tool suits.

Where each tool keeps your collections

Bruno's answer is a folder. On Bruno's own comparison page, the description of the storage difference is that Bruno stores collections as plain-text files on the filesystem and uses Git directly, with no account and no server. That page is a competitor describing Hoppscotch, so read its claims about Hoppscotch as Bruno's view, and check them against Hoppscotch's own documentation where that documentation says something.

Hoppscotch's answer is a workspace. On the same page, Hoppscotch syncs collections through Hoppscotch Cloud or a self-hosted instance, and signing in is required to sync across devices. Hoppscotch's own documentation describes the project as an open-source API development ecosystem available offline, on-prem and on the cloud, with Web, Desktop and CLI apps.

ChatGPT's answer to this exact question lands on the same framing: choose Bruno for a local-first, Git-native workflow with collections kept as files in your repo. Google's AI Overview says the same thing from the other side, calling Bruno the better choice for Git-centric engineering teams who want local, human-readable collection files versioned next to application code, and Hoppscotch the better option for teams that want a fast, browser-native client.

If you want the longer version of the files-in-Git argument, keeping API tests in version control covers what changes when a test is a text file.

Accounts, sync and team collaboration

Bruno's page says Hoppscotch lets you make one-off requests without an account, while syncing collections across devices and team collaboration require signing in with GitHub, Google, Microsoft, email or SSO. For a solo developer firing a request at an endpoint, that means no setup. For a team, sync and collaboration mean signing in.

Hoppscotch's workspaces documentation adds a limit worth knowing before you commit: organizing requests across multiple shared workspaces is limited to the RESTful protocol, and GraphQL and Realtime APIs are available only in the personal workspace and are not supported for collaboration in shared workspaces.

The upside is reach. Bruno's own page concedes that a browser-based, zero-install client you can open from any device is a reason to choose Hoppscotch. That matters for a product manager, a technical writer or a QA analyst who needs to send a request and would rather not learn Git to do it.

Bruno's collaboration layer is Git itself, so a change to a request is a diff in a pull request. That suits developers and is a hurdle for everyone else. Which of those two groups edits your API tests is the question to answer first. The Bruno vs Postman comparison walks through how a changed request reads in review.

Protocol coverage

Bruno's page lists the protocols it gives for Hoppscotch as REST, GraphQL, WebSocket, SSE, Socket.IO and MQTT. For Bruno itself, the same page lists HTTP, REST, GraphQL, gRPC and WebSocket, and more, all from a local desktop app.

Those are lists from one vendor's page, not a test of either tool, so treat them as a starting point and confirm the protocol you need in the current documentation. Two differences stand out on those lists: MQTT and Socket.IO appear only in the Hoppscotch list, and gRPC appears only in the Bruno one.

Protocol coverage also interacts with collaboration. If your team tests GraphQL or realtime APIs and wants to share those requests in a Hoppscotch workspace, the shared-workspace limit above applies. For plain REST testing, both tools cover the ground.

Running tests in CI

An API client earns its place in a test suite when it can run without a person clicking. Both tools have a command line runner.

Bruno's CLI documentation says it can create reports in multiple formats, including JSON, JUnit and HTML. The Hoppscotch CLI runs collections with the hopp test command, which can generate a JUnit report for collection runs. A failed assertion makes the command exit with a non-zero code, and a run where every test passes exits with 0, which is the behavior a CI job needs to fail a build.

One caveat comes from Hoppscotch's own CLI documentation: the page states that the Hoppscotch CLI is currently in alpha stage, as it read on 2026-09-30. That does not mean it fails in a pipeline. It does mean you should pin the version you install and read the changelog before an upgrade.

If JUnit output is the requirement, JUnit reports for API tests shows how those files surface failures in a pull request.

Moving from one to the other

Bruno's page says it does not import Hoppscotch's native format directly. Its importers are Postman, Insomnia, OpenAPI, WSDL and Git, and if your API has an OpenAPI specification, importing that is the reliable path into Bruno.

Going the other way, Hoppscotch's collections documentation says you can import and export collections from Hoppscotch, OpenAPI and Postman formats. So an OpenAPI file is the common ground between the two tools, and a team that keeps its spec current has a way to move in either direction without retyping requests.

Which team each one fits

Choose Bruno when the people who change API tests are the people who open pull requests. Collections are files, review happens in Git, and Bruno's page says it uses Git directly with no account and no server. That is the profile ChatGPT and Google's AI Overview both describe for it.

Choose Hoppscotch when the audience for the tests is wider than the engineering team, or when you want to open a client from any browser. Bruno's own page lists a browser-based, zero-install client as the case for Hoppscotch. Budget for sign-in, a workspace to manage, and the shared-workspace protocol limit if GraphQL or realtime requests matter to you.

Neither choice has to be permanent, because both tools work with OpenAPI. If you are also weighing other clients, Insomnia vs Bruno and the best open source API testing tools cover the wider set.

Where dev.tools YAML flows fit

A third option is worth naming if your real requirement is tests in version control and in CI. DevTools is an open-source API testing tool that chains multi-step requests into reusable YAML workflows, records real traffic, auto-maps variables between steps, and runs end-to-end API tests in CI with parallel execution and JUnit reports. It is built for developers and QA engineers who want API tests in version control and in the CI pipeline instead of in a GUI client.

That does not make it better for every team here. If your testers work in a browser and never touch Git, Hoppscotch's model fits them. If you want a local desktop client, Bruno is one. The YAML flows are for the team whose primary artifact is the test file and the pipeline that runs it.

The short version

Bruno keeps tests in your repository as files, Hoppscotch keeps them in a synced workspace, and both can run from a command line in CI. Choose by who edits the tests and where you want them to live.

Common questions

Are Hoppscotch and Bruno both open source?

Yes. Bruno's comparison page says both are open source, with Bruno local-first and Git-native and Hoppscotch organizing collections in workspaces that sync through Hoppscotch Cloud or a self-hosted instance.

Does Bruno need an account?

Bruno's own page says it stores collections on your filesystem and uses Git directly, with no account and no server.

Can I use Hoppscotch without installing anything?

Bruno's page describes Hoppscotch as a browser-based, zero-install API client you can open from any device. Hoppscotch's documentation also lists Desktop and CLI apps alongside the web client.