Paw vs Runscope: What are the differences?
Developers describe Paw as "The ultimate REST client for Mac". Paw is a full-featured and beautifully designed Mac app that makes interaction with REST services delightful. Either you are an API maker or consumer, Paw helps you build HTTP requests, inspect the server's response and even generate client code. On the other hand, Runscope is detailed as "API Performance Monitoring". Keep tabs on all aspects of your API's performance with uptime monitoring, integration testing, logging and real-time monitoring.
Paw and Runscope can be categorized as "API" tools.
Some of the features offered by Paw are:
- Organize your Requests, make Groups or sort by Host, Name, etc.
- Easily build your requests, enjoy Formatters and Dynamic Values.
- See Request and Response infos, headers, and body.
On the other hand, Runscope provides the following key features:
- Runscope Radar: Automatically monitor your APIs from around the globe. Integrates with PagerDuty, New Relic Insights, Keen IO, HipChat, Slack and more. Test complete API workflows with powerful assertions and notifications.
- Runscope Metrics: API performance and usage reports.
- Runscope API Traffic Inspector: Log and view API calls from any language or framework to any API to solve integration problems.
"Great interface" is the primary reason why developers consider Paw over the competitors, whereas "Great features" was stated as the key factor in picking Runscope.
CrowdFlower, Docusign, and Fitbit are some of the popular companies that use Runscope, whereas Paw is used by Paw, Swat.io, and PlanHW. Runscope has a broader approval, being mentioned in 38 company stacks & 7 developers stacks; compared to Paw, which is listed in 17 company stacks and 12 developer stacks.
What is Paw?
What is Runscope?
Need advice about which tool to choose?Ask the StackShare community!
Sign up to add, upvote and see more prosMake informed product decisions
What are the cons of using Runscope?
Sign up to get full access to all the companiesMake informed product decisions
What tools integrate with Paw?
Sign up to get full access to all the tool integrationsMake informed product decisions
We've tried a couple REST clients over the years, and Insomnia REST Client has won us over the most. Here's what we like about it compared to other contenders in this category:
- Uncluttered UI. Things are only in your face when you need them, and the app is visually organized in an intuitive manner.
- Native Mac app. We wanted the look and feel to be on par with other apps in our OS rather than a web app / Electron app (cough Postman).
- Easy team sync. Other apps have this too, but Insomnia's model best sets the "set and forget" mentality. Syncs are near instant and I'm always assured that I'm working on the latest version of API endpoints. Apps like Paw use a git-based approach to revision history, but I think this actually over-complicates the sync feature. For ensuring I'm always working on the latest version of something, I'd rather have the sync model be closer to Dropbox's than git's, and Insomnia is closer to Dropbox in that regard.
Some features like automatic public-facing documentation aren't supported, but we currently don't have any public APIs, so this didn't matter to us.
Paw allows me to interface with an API prior to starting UI work that requires the API. This helps me understand what data is required to be sent to the API, and what to expect back.
In cases where I develop the API, Paw helps me to test as I'm developing, ensuring changes I make aren't breaking other parts of the API.
Used Runscope for monitoring API uptime and data validation in context of the Harald beacon platform.