Postman vs Runscope comparison

"The solution has a great user interface and collection of features."

"The user-interface is very good."

"Postman is very user-friendly and accessible even for those with minimal experience."

"No coding required."

"What is most valuable for me is that we can create and share collections between the team members."

"Postman lets you create, manage, and validate a suite of tests. It has several features to help you organize your test suite. You can also automate stuff with a lot of validations and assertions. Postman supports GraphQL, and you can do various kinds of calls."

"One of the most valuable aspects of Postman is scalability. We can scale the collection and for the multiple repositories of the collections."

"I can use multiple environments, which allows me to create environment variables for each endpoint."

"The schedule is definitely the most valuable. Also, being able to check the JSON attribute values is helpful. We always check the attributes. Finally, the notifications are helpful as well."

"Environment initial variables allow our team to run tests against multiple environments on the fly."

"It uses JavaScript which is easy."

"You can run it off the cloud and against different data centers. That's one of the plus points for most people for this product, as opposed to some other solutions."

"It is a cloud-based environment for building and executing tests, which allows me to focus on building, running, and reviewing test results."

"We can receive an email and slack notifications if tests are failing/passing."

"It has a relatively simple user experience."

"We love the fact that we can have our API tests run on a schedule as often as we need. We also take advantage of being able to set up different environment settings so that we can use the same test in our production, integration, and QA environments, easily. The ability to string together a number of API tests for a test suite is very important to us as well."

"The solution is quite complex partly because the UI needs simplification."

"There needs to be more flexibility surrounding the testing of SOAP APIs."

"The solution can be improved by providing detailed error logs including the line the error took place to make it easier to correct."

"Version management could be simplified."

"An area that needs some improvement would be to allow multiple windows with different collections to be open at the same time."

"There is no support for the testing of the SOAP APIs."

"It should be able to check the records and compare them to the regression testing more on the automation side."

"Should have a more improved easy-to-use interface."

"Needs the ability to create code which runs before and after API tests."

"Currently, we can only schedule to the nearest five minutes, one hour, two hours, etc. If we could set up the exact time that we want it to run, that would be good because sometimes we have one service that crosses another service."

"We definitely make use of historical test results, especially when tracking more difficult issues such as timeouts. Per our test frequency (15 minutes) we often need to go back further than the last 100 test runs. We are aware that results further back in time are available through the Runscope API, however, it would be great if the dashboard allowed easy access to a larger amount of historical data."

"One thing that can be improved is the logging. Sometimes, when we have an error, we don't know how to find more information about the problem that has happened. Sometimes, it just returns something like "that gateway." More information would be a way to improve it."

"We would like the ability to configure Runscope behavior when a given test has its schedule modified. That is, in a non-production environment, we often need to pause a test (either by removing it from the schedule or adjusting its frequency) and this results in the automatic kick-off of this test in all other environments. We would like the ability to simply pause a test for a specific shared environment without causing additional tests to be started."

"Reliability. I would like to see more money invested in disaster recovery testing of the application. The product should be hosted across several AWS regions so if there are issues with an EC2 instance in a particular region, the whole application won't be affected. Once or twice a year there are issues with AWS that causes the reliability of the application to suffer."

"I would like to see easier integration and display of test results so that the data could be shared via a dashboard within our company. (Some integration is possible, provided you use one of the supported platforms)."

"We would like to have an improved ability to share a set of tests across different environments (e.g., dev, stage, and prod)."

"It is free."

"The solution has a licensing fee which might be prohibitive."

"Postman is a free service."

"I am using the free option."

"The solution is open-source and free."

"We use the open-source version. They introduced a new licensing model where your company must subscribe to their services if you're using it for business purposes. However, I think they charge too much if you're only using the basic features. It limits what your organization can do if you're not a paying customer."

"I use the tool's free version."

"We are currently using the free version, but we have plans to buy a license."

"Having the different plans organized by team size, buckets, and requests per billing period works for our needs. Larger companies may need to take a close look at these elements."

"The price for the product is very reasonable for a team of more than four to five members."

"Runscope pricing is unbeatable"

"Pricing is fair."