Postman vs SwaggerHub comparison

"The initial setup of this solution is straightforward. Postman can be used as an extension in Google Chrome for those who do not wish to install it directly. Deployment took an hour and a half."

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

"Postman is easy to use and enables us to test all possible API testing scenarios."

"Postman helps to write pre-request scripts and make a collection out of each request. You don’t have to spend time writing or copying the requests. The solution lets you integrate multiple environments and their features. Either the tool’s pro or premium version lets you do the merge and pull request for the Git directly."

"The most valuable feature of Postman is the large libraries."

"The environment variables are a valuable feature because I can easily switch them and see all the developments in different cycles and stages."

"The solution is stable."

"It is simple, easy to use and a good tool."

"The most valuable features are the collaboration between multiple teams and the control and distribution of specifications."

"The product's initial setup phase was easy and not at all difficult."

"It is quite a useful tool. It is quite good with the validation of the spec. It works quite well in terms of errors and conformity to the OpenAPI standard. It is better than Visual Studio Code in terms of editing."

"The scalability is endless."

"I rate the solution's stability a ten out of ten."

"You can click & play and add the notation in a human-readable form. Spotlight is also very good in the graphical design of APIs."

"The tool's most valuable feature is licensing."

"It is a stable solution."

"The product lacks a good console."

"It would be better if we could integrate programming languages like .NET, Java, and JavaScript. It could also be more user-friendly."

"The reporting could be better. It should give you a detailed PDF report after you run a test."

"Postman needs more advanced data-driven testing."

"The request encryption could be one thing on which they can work a little bit. If we don't want to expose our production data but we still want to test our APIs on the production data, there should be a way to do that. It is not only with Postman. I think no tool in the market is doing that right now."

"Multi-part requests should be handled in the octet-stream."

"Reporting can be better. If you have bigger APIs, it takes time."

"If we have a certain build on one machine it won't work with another build even if we are using the same URL. It would give us a connection refuse. So developing environment compatibility would make it better."

"SwaggerHub could be improved with better integration for tools."

"We have to use additional tools to test APIs."

"The review process should be improved. There seem to be some gaps, at least for us, for the editing part because we would like to have a full request review mechanism. They support some comments, but it is really hard to manage those comments. We would like to use the full request. Therefore, we are now looking to integrate with repositories. It has integration with Bitbucket and GitHub, but we have some internal constraints, and we need to move some of the repositories to GitHub. Our source code is on-premise in Bitbucket, and it was a bit of a problem for us to integrate. Now we are transitioning our repositories to GitHub, and hopefully, we can enable the integration. This will probably solve the problem with the review and approval. Its customization should also be improved. There are limitations around the support for the developer portal. There should be more customization options for the website that you can use as a developer portal. Currently, it has only Swagger UI with minimal customization. You cannot actually add additional pages and documentation for explaining concepts and general things. That's why we have started to look around to see what other tools are doing. They should also allow tagging on the API. We would like to add some tagging on the API to reflect certain things. Currently, any metadata that you would like to have has to be a part of the spec. You cannot do anything else. It should also have support for Open API 3.1, which was released at the beginning of the year. It would be great to be able to switch to that."

"It has limited functionality...Unfortunately, some of its features are not what we need."

"SwaggerHub lacks in terms of integrations. They have APIs integrated, and they also have some connectors, but they don't have integration with many of the things that we use. For example, for connecting with SVN, we had to implement external scripts. So, they should work on the integration because currently, we have to work on the integration with our DevOps, continuous delivery, or continuous deployment. It would be great if these integrations are built-in. Mainly, we would like it to integrate with SVN and Jira."

"It could be more intuitive compared to one of its competitors."

"More integration and usability with the cloud microservices would be nice"

"SwaggerHub's UI needs to be improved as it looks very old school."

"We are using its free version."

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

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

"We do not pay any money for Postman."

"The solution is free for individuals, but for companies that use it across the organization, you have to pay per user."

"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."

"Unlike APIs, the solution does not require a license."

"The management considers it a bit expensive. At first, we wanted to purchase a license for 100 users, but we went for a license for only 15 users. Its cost is $10,220 per year."

"It has a yearly subscription, but I am not sure."

"The tool is cheap."