Skip to content

Restorm or Bruno?

Bruno and Restorm share the same starting conviction: API collections are code, they belong in the repository. That is not a small thing in common — it is what separates both of them from Postman.

The difference is one of scope.

RestormBruno
Local, version-controllable storage
Format.restorm (YAML, JSON or JSON5), or folder mode.bru, one file per request
Executable protocols15HTTP, GraphQL, gRPC
ChainingVisual scenariosJavaScript scripts and tests
Scripting languages7JavaScript
Mock servers6 protocols, locally
Import24 formatsPostman, Insomnia, OpenAPI
Network firewall
AI drivingBuilt-in MCP server
Git built into the application✔, with domain-level conflict resolutionThrough your usual git tool
  • One file per request. Diffs are naturally minimal and code review is immediate. Restorm achieves a comparable result with its folder mode, but Bruno starts from there.
  • Simplicity. Bruno does one thing and does it well. If you only ever call HTTP and GraphQL, its reduced surface is a genuine advantage.
  • The .bru language, readable and hand-editable in any editor.
  • Open source.
  • Protocol coverage. Kafka, AMQP, MQTT, Redis, STOMP, SOAP, OData, tRPC, JSON-RPC, SSE — see the catalogue. It is the decisive criterion if your system is not HTTP-only.
  • Visual scenarios, with over 90 box types, the orchestration of long-lived connections, and running in CI.
  • Local mock servers on six protocols.
  • The 24 import formats, with re-synchronisation when the specification changes.
  • The firewall.
  • MCP driving.
  • The built-in git with conflict resolution in the genuine request editors.
Your situationOur view
HTTP / GraphQL APIs only, a team that wants the least possible toolingBruno
Several transports — messaging, streams, gRPC, SOAPRestorm
A need to mock services locallyRestorm
A need to orchestrate complex chainsRestorm
Open source above all elseBruno

Your Bruno collections import, scripts included — the bru.* layer makes them work. See Importing a Bruno collection.