TL;DR

• Postman: feature-rich, team collaboration (workspaces, mock servers), $12/month per user.
• Insomnia: lightweight, fast, GraphQL-first, Kong integration, $5/month per user.
• Bruno: Git-native (no cloud), privacy-focused, one-time $19 payment (Golden Edition).

Jump to Feature comparison · Jump to Postman verdict · Jump to Insomnia verdict · Jump to Bruno verdict

Postman vs Insomnia vs Bruno: Best API Testing Tool 2025

API development demands fast iteration -test endpoints, validate responses, share collections with teammates. This Postman vs Insomnia vs Bruno review compares all three across collaboration, performance, Git integration, and pricing so you pick the right tool.

Key takeaways

• Postman: best for teams needing workspaces, mock servers, and automated testing.
• Insomnia: best for GraphQL-heavy APIs and developers wanting lightweight alternative.
• Bruno: best for privacy-conscious teams wanting Git-native workflow (no cloud sync).

Feature comparison

Postman verdict

Strengths

• Feature breadth: Collections, environments, mock servers, monitors, API documentation, following Postman's platform docs (2024).
• Team workspaces: Shared collections, role-based access, comment threads.
• Automated testing: Newman CLI for CI/CD pipelines (run Postman collections in GitHub Actions).
• Mock servers: Simulate API responses before backend exists; parallel frontend/backend development.

Limitations

• Performance: Electron-based; slower startup, higher RAM usage (~300MB idle).
• Pricing: Free tier limited to 3 users; Team plan $12/user/month adds up quickly.
• Git workflow: Collections stored in Postman cloud; Git integration requires export/import.

Best for: Teams needing comprehensive API platform (testing + docs + mocks), enterprises with complex collaboration needs.

Rating: 5/5 – Industry standard for API development platforms.

Insomnia verdict

Strengths

• GraphQL-first: Native GraphQL support with schema introspection, query autocompletion, following Insomnia's GraphQL guide (2024).
• Performance: Fast startup (<2s), lightweight (~150MB RAM).
• Kong integration: Seamless workflow if using Kong API Gateway.
• Plugins: Extensible via JavaScript plugins (custom auth, request hooks).

Limitations

• Limited collaboration: Cloud sync less mature than Postman workspaces.
• No mock servers: Must use external tools (json-server, Mockoon).
• Smaller ecosystem: Fewer integrations, plugins vs Postman.

Best for: Solo developers or small teams (2–5 people), GraphQL-heavy APIs, developers prioritising performance over features.

Rating: 4/5 – Best GraphQL experience; trails Postman for team collaboration.

Bruno verdict

Strengths

• Git-native: Collections stored as plain-text .bru files in repo; version control built in, as detailed in Bruno's Git workflow (2024).
• Privacy-first: No cloud sync; all data local or in your Git repo.
• Fast: Native (not Electron), <1s startup, ~80MB RAM.
• One-time payment: $19 Golden Edition (vs subscription fatigue).

Limitations

• Team collaboration: Requires Git workflow; no built-in workspace/sharing UI.
• Feature gaps: No mock servers, limited automated testing, fewer integrations.
• Smaller community: Newer tool (launched 2022); fewer resources than Postman/Insomnia.

Best for: Privacy-conscious teams, developers wanting API collections in Git, teams already using Git for collaboration.

Rating: 4/5 – Best Git-native workflow; less polished for enterprise features.

Decision matrix

Call-to-action (Tool selection) Download all three (free versions) and test with your API for 1 week; measure which fits your workflow best.

Summary and next steps

• Postman: Comprehensive platform for teams, $12/user/month.
• Insomnia: GraphQL-first, fast, $5/user/month or free.
• Bruno: Git-native, privacy-focused, $19 one-time.

Internal links

• /blog/rest-api-design-best-practices
• /blog/github-copilot-vs-cursor-vs-codeium
• /blog/vercel-vs-netlify-vs-railway-deployment

External references

• Postman Learning Center
• Insomnia GraphQL Docs
• Bruno Git Workflow