Postman vs Test Mace

Overview

Postman

Stacks96.1K

Followers82.5K

Votes1.8K

Forks0

Test Mace

Stacks0

Followers5

Votes0

Postman vs Test Mace: What are the differences?

Collaboration Features: Postman provides robust collaboration features, allowing teams to work together on APIs by sharing collections, environments, and workspaces. In contrast, Test Mace lacks advanced collaboration features, making it less suitable for teams working collaboratively on API testing projects.
User Interface: Postman offers a sleek and user-friendly interface with features like tabbed browsing, side-by-side editors, and syntax highlighting. On the other hand, Test Mace has a simpler interface with fewer customization options, which may appeal to users looking for a more minimalist design.
Testing Capabilities: Postman has a wide range of testing capabilities, including automation, monitoring, and reporting features that cater to both manual and automated testing needs. Test Mace, while proficient in manual testing, lacks some of the advanced automation and monitoring features that Postman offers.
Integration Options: Postman allows seamless integration with various third-party tools and services, enhancing its usability and flexibility. In comparison, Test Mace has limited integration options, which may restrict its ability to work in conjunction with other tools and platforms.
Extensions and Customization: Postman supports a vast array of extensions and custom scripts that can be used to enhance its functionality and tailor it to specific testing requirements. Test Mace, while customizable to some extent, does not offer the same level of extensibility and customization options as Postman.
Pricing Structure: Postman offers a free version with limited features, as well as paid plans for individuals and teams with additional functionalities. Test Mace, on the other hand, has a single pricing model with affordable rates, making it a budget-friendly choice for users seeking a straightforward API testing solution.

In Summary, Postman and Test Mace differ in their collaboration features, user interface, testing capabilities, integration options, extensions/customization, and pricing structure, catering to different user needs and preferences in API testing tools.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Advice on Postman, Test Mace

Jagdeep

Tech Lead at Founder and Lightning

May 6, 2019

Reviewon

Postman

I use Postman because of the ease of team-management, using workspaces and teams, runner, collections, environment variables, test-scripts (post execution), variable management (pre and post execution), folders (inside collections, for better management of APIs), newman, easy-ci-integration (and probably a few more things that I am not able to recall right now).

411k views411k

Comments

StackShare

May 1, 2019

Needs advice

From a StackShare Community member: "I just started working for a start-up and we are in desperate need of better documentation for our API. Currently our API docs is in a README.md file. We are evaluating Postman and Swagger UI. Since there are many options and I was wondering what other StackSharers would recommend?"

382k views382k

Comments

Stephen

Artificial Intelligence Fellow

Feb 4, 2020

Decided

Postman supports automation and organization in a way that Insomnia just doesn't. Admittedly, Insomnia makes it slightly easy to query the data that you get back (in a very MongoDB-esque query language) but Postman sets you up to develop the code that you would use in development/testing right in the editor.

361k views361k

Comments

Detailed Comparison

Postman	Test Mace
It is the only complete API development environment, used by nearly five million developers and more than 100,000 companies worldwide.	Harness the power of scenarios, autocompletion and syntax highlight for API development. Write tests, share code without leaving the comfortable development environment. It is available for Windows, Linux and MacOS.
Compact layout;HTTP requests with file upload support;Formatted API responses for JSON and XML;Image previews;Request history;Basic Auth, OAuth 1.0, OAuth 2.0, and other common auth helpers;Autocomplete for URL and header values;Key/value editors for adding parameters or header values. Works for URL parameters too.;Use environment variables to easily shift between settings. Great for testing production, staging or local setups.;Keyboard shortcuts to maximize your productivity;Automatically generated web documentation;Mock servers hosted on Postman’s cloud;API monitoring run from Postman cloud	Complex tests; API import; Teamwork; Variables; Generating tests; Autocomplete; Javascript tests; Syntax highlighting; Undo and redo changes
Statistics
GitHub Forks 0	GitHub Forks -
Stacks 96.1K	Stacks 0
Followers 82.5K	Followers 5
Votes 1.8K	Votes 0
Pros & Cons
Pros 490 Easy to use 369 Great tool 276 Makes developing rest api's easy peasy 156 Easy setup, looks good 144 The best api workflow out there Cons 10 Stores credentials in HTTP 9 Bloated features and UI 8 Cumbersome to switch authentication tokens 7 Poor GraphQL support 5 Expensive	No community feedback yet
Integrations
HipChat Keen Slack Dropbox Datadog PagerDuty Bigpanda Microsoft Teams Newman VictorOps	Windows JavaScript Linux macOS

What are some alternatives to Postman, Test Mace?

Swagger UI

Swagger UI is a dependency-free collection of HTML, Javascript, and CSS assets that dynamically generate beautiful documentation and sandbox from a Swagger-compliant API

Paw

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.

Apiary

It takes more than a simple HTML page to thrill your API users. The right tools take weeks of development. Weeks that apiary.io saves.

Karate DSL

Combines API test-automation, mocks and performance-testing into a single, unified framework. The BDD syntax popularized by Cucumber is language-neutral, and easy for even non-programmers. Besides powerful JSON & XML assertions, you can run tests in parallel for speed - which is critical for HTTP API testing.

ReadMe.io

It is an easy-to-use tool to help you build out documentation! Each documentation site that you publish is a project where there is space for documentation, interactive API reference guides, a changelog, and much more.

Appwrite

Appwrite's open-source platform lets you add Auth, DBs, Functions and Storage to your product and build any application at any scale, own your data, and use your preferred coding languages and tools.

Runscope

Keep tabs on all aspects of your API's performance with uptime monitoring, integration testing, logging and real-time monitoring.

Insomnia REST Client

Insomnia is a powerful REST API Client with cookie management, environment variables, code generation, and authentication for Mac, Window, and Linux.

RAML

RESTful API Modeling Language (RAML) makes it easy to manage the whole API lifecycle from design to sharing. It's concise - you only write what you need to define - and reusable. It is machine readable API design that is actually human friendly.

Docusaurus

Docusaurus is a project for easily building, deploying, and maintaining open source project websites.

Related Comparisons

Postman vs Test Mace: What are the differences?

Collaboration Features: Postman provides robust collaboration features, allowing teams to work together on APIs by sharing collections, environments, and workspaces. In contrast, Test Mace lacks advanced collaboration features, making it less suitable for teams working collaboratively on API testing projects.
User Interface: Postman offers a sleek and user-friendly interface with features like tabbed browsing, side-by-side editors, and syntax highlighting. On the other hand, Test Mace has a simpler interface with fewer customization options, which may appeal to users looking for a more minimalist design.
Testing Capabilities: Postman has a wide range of testing capabilities, including automation, monitoring, and reporting features that cater to both manual and automated testing needs. Test Mace, while proficient in manual testing, lacks some of the advanced automation and monitoring features that Postman offers.
Integration Options: Postman allows seamless integration with various third-party tools and services, enhancing its usability and flexibility. In comparison, Test Mace has limited integration options, which may restrict its ability to work in conjunction with other tools and platforms.
Extensions and Customization: Postman supports a vast array of extensions and custom scripts that can be used to enhance its functionality and tailor it to specific testing requirements. Test Mace, while customizable to some extent, does not offer the same level of extensibility and customization options as Postman.
Pricing Structure: Postman offers a free version with limited features, as well as paid plans for individuals and teams with additional functionalities. Test Mace, on the other hand, has a single pricing model with affordable rates, making it a budget-friendly choice for users seeking a straightforward API testing solution.

Postman vs Test Mace

Overview