Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Bump.sh vs Postman: What are the differences?
Introduction:
Bump.sh and Postman are two popular tools used in API development and testing. These tools have some key differences that differentiate them from each other.
Interface: Bump.sh has a command-line interface, making it more suitable for developers comfortable with working in a terminal or scripting environment. In contrast, Postman offers a graphical user interface, which is intuitive and beginner-friendly, allowing users to interact with APIs visually.
Collaboration: Postman provides robust collaboration features, allowing team members to share collections, workspaces, and environments. Bump.sh, on the other hand, lacks built-in collaboration features, making it less ideal for team collaboration and sharing API testing workflows.
Testing environments: Postman offers a built-in testing framework that allows users to write and run automated tests for APIs directly within the tool. Bump.sh, on the other hand, lacks a built-in testing framework, requiring users to rely on external tools or scripts for automated testing.
Scripting capabilities: Bump.sh is more focused on scripting and automation, providing users with powerful scripting capabilities using shell scripts. In contrast, while Postman offers scripting capabilities through JavaScript, it is not as robust as Bump.sh in terms of shell scripting functionalities.
Authentication: Postman offers a wide range of authentication options, including OAuth, API keys, and basic authentication, making it easier to test APIs with different authentication mechanisms. Bump.sh, however, has limited built-in authentication options, requiring users to manually handle authentication headers in scripts.
Pricing model: Postman offers a free tier with limited features and a paid version with additional functionalities. On the other hand, Bump.sh is open-source and free to use without any limitations, making it a cost-effective option for developers and small teams.
In Summary, Bump.sh and Postman differ in interface, collaboration features, testing environments, scripting capabilities, authentication options, and pricing model.
Pros of Bump.sh
Pros of Postman
- Easy to use490
- Great tool369
- Makes developing rest api's easy peasy276
- Easy setup, looks good156
- The best api workflow out there144
- It's the best53
- History feature53
- Adds real value to my workflow44
- Great interface that magically predicts your needs43
- The best in class app35
- Can save and share script12
- Fully featured without looking cluttered10
- Collections8
- Option to run scrips8
- Global/Environment Variables8
- Shareable Collections7
- Dead simple and useful. Excellent7
- Dark theme easy on the eyes7
- Awesome customer support6
- Great integration with newman6
- Documentation5
- Simple5
- The test script is useful5
- Saves responses4
- This has simplified my testing significantly4
- Makes testing API's as easy as 1,2,34
- Easy as pie4
- API-network3
- I'd recommend it to everyone who works with apis3
- Mocking API calls with predefined response3
- Now supports GraphQL2
- Postman Runner CI Integration2
- Easy to setup, test and provides test storage2
- Continuous integration using newman2
- Pre-request Script and Test attributes are invaluable2
- Runner2
- Graph2
- <a href="http://fixbit.com/">useful tool</a>1
Sign up to add or upvote prosMake informed product decisions
Cons of Bump.sh
Cons of Postman
- Stores credentials in HTTP10
- Bloated features and UI9
- Cumbersome to switch authentication tokens8
- Poor GraphQL support7
- Expensive5
- Not free after 5 users3
- Can't prompt for per-request variables3
- Import swagger1
- Support websocket1
- Import curl1
