oral VS mockttp

Compare oral vs mockttp and see what are their differences.

Our great sponsors
  • Appwrite - The Open Source Firebase alternative introduces iOS support
  • InfluxDB - Access the most powerful time series database as a service
  • Sonar - Write Clean JavaScript Code. Always.
oral mockttp
2 16
14 623
- 1.9%
0.0 8.6
over 1 year ago 9 days ago
TypeScript TypeScript
MIT License Apache License 2.0
The number of mentions indicates the total number of mentions that we've tracked plus the number of user suggested alternatives.
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.


Posts with mentions or reviews of oral. We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives and similar projects.

We haven't tracked posts mentioning oral yet.
Tracking mentions began in Dec 2020.


Posts with mentions or reviews of mockttp. We have used some of these posts to build our list of alternatives and similar projects. The last one was on 2021-12-20.
  • HTTP Toolkit
    24 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 20 Dec 2021
    I'm the author of HTTP Toolkit, I actually built the internals much earlier as an open-source library (Mockttp: https://github.com/httptoolkit/mockttp) designed for exactly the end-to-end testing mocking use case you're talking about.

    It's MIT-licensed, and you can build an automated HTTP/HTTPS rewriting proxy using that in a handful of lines of JS, and script any kind of transformations or inject any responses you like.

    There's a general guide to getting started here: https://httptoolkit.tech/blog/javascript-mitm-proxy-mockttp/.

    For the more general interactive testing/debugging case, you can also use HTTP Toolkit itself (it has a rules builder for this kind of thing) but if you're building automation you should just use the internals directly, they have exactly the same capabilities. HTTP Toolkit just provides a UI and convenient interception setup tools over the top.

    24 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 20 Dec 2021
    > why would I prefer this to mitmproxy?

    Compared to mitmproxy, HTTP Toolkit:

    - Has fully automated setup for most browsers, docker containers, Android, all Node.js/Ruby/Python/PHP/Go applications run from intercepted terminal windows, all JVM processes, any Electron apps etc etc. Some of these automated setup steps are very difficult to do manually (e.g. intercepting Android devices, where you can't normally install your own certificates nowadays, or intercepting Node.js, which completely ignores system proxy settings) so this can make a huge difference in non-trivial case.

    - Supports targeted interception (intercept just one app/container/browser window) whilst all mitmproxy's manual setup steps are generally focused on helping you intercept your whole machine at once. Intercepting the whole machine means very noisy interception and means that rewriting traffic interferes with all other usage of your machine. Targeted interception means you can do neat things like run two HTTP Toolkit instances independently at the same time, and means you don't need root privileges or permanent configuration settings.

    - Has generally friendlier UI & UX (imo). For example, mitmproxy uses a unique custom syntax (https://docs.mitmproxy.org/stable/concepts-filters/) of special characters to define matching & rewriting rules, or requires you to write a full python script. HTTP Toolkit lets you click 'new rule' -> 'GET requests' -> 'match regex ' -> 'then reply with ', and then immediately start injecting automated fake responses. From HTTP Toolkit you can then build named groups or these rules, and import & export them (as JSON) to build libraries you can share with your colleagues.

    - Provides lots more background information automatically: e.g. built-in documentation for all standard HTTP headers, body autoformatting for lots more formats, syntax highlighting, code folding, regex searching etc of request & response bodies, plus 'this is how and why this response could be cached' caching explanations, OpenAPI-powered docs for recognized endpoints on 1400+ APIs, etc.

    - Includes advanced features to do things like exporting requests as ready-to-use code for various languages & tools, or automatically testing the performance of different compression algorithms on a given response body.

    - Is more easily scriptable for automation & end-to-end testing, because all the HTTP-handling internals are usable as a standalone open-source JS library: https://github.com/httptoolkit/mockttp

    That said, mitmproxy has been around longer, it's definitely more mature, and it was a big inspiration in many places. It's a great project! It does have some advantages of its own:

    - If you strongly prefer a CLI interface, mitmproxy is very focused on that, and HTTP Toolkit is not. HTTP Toolkit could support that too in theory (the backend & frontend are independent) but it definitely doesn't right now, and it's not high on my todo list (contributions welcome though!)

    - Mitmproxy is primarily scriptable in Python. You can build automation around HTTP Toolkit's internals using mockttp, but that's JS, and it's mostly usable standalone right now, rather than integrated into normal workflows within the app. If you want very complex scripted rules, mitmproxy has a few more options right now, and lets you do things in python instead of JS, which some people will prefer.

    - WebSocket debugging - this is coming for HTTP Toolkit soon, but it's not available today. WebSockets get passed through fine, but they don't appear in the UI, and you can't set up mock rules for them.

    > I'd be interested both in why I'd prefer the open source httptoolkit and pro?

    There's a list of Pro features at https://httptoolkit.tech/pricing/. Note that it's all open source, even the Pro code, everything.

    The general idea is that everything you need to intercept, inspect and manually fiddle with traffic is totally free. Anything optional that most users don't need, but which is helpful for advanced usage or enterprise use cases, requires Pro.

  • Hudsucker: A MITM HTTP/S (and websocket) proxy
    2 projects | reddit.com/r/rust | 1 Sep 2021
    I think MITM should provide a lot of features for that please checkout mock http https://github.com/httptoolkit/mockttp
  • Docker is updating and extending our product subscriptions
    10 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 31 Aug 2021
    Same with Telerik Fiddler recently. Good piece of software for debugging network requests on Windows.

    Was free for as long as I've known it existed. Telerik recently bought by 'Progress' (ironic), software re-written in Electron and now charges a subscription to use it.

    Glad HTTP Toolkit is now available free for most standard tasks - https://httptoolkit.tech/

  • Mitmproxy 7.0
    5 projects | news.ycombinator.com | 16 Jul 2021
    I'd highly recommend https://httptoolkit.tech/ for that explorative GUI phase. I found it recently and the rule configuration, UI and interception setup is significantly better than Charles/Fiddler/Proxyman.
    102 projects | dev.to | 26 Apr 2021
    HTTP Toolkit - HTTP debugging & mocking tool.
  • Web Weekly #8
    4 projects | dev.to | 28 Feb 2021
    Let's come to Frontend Developers' favourite topic: CORS requests ( Cross-Origin Resource Sharing). Tim Perry, who runs HTTP toolkit, explained what CORS and pre-flight requests are and shared how you can cache the OPTIONS request responses in multiple programming languages.
  • GraphQL the Simple Way, or: Don't Use Apollo
    8 projects | dev.to | 2 Sep 2020
    Apollo's packages like to move fast and break things, and each often requires specific conflicting graphql peer dependencies, making updates remarkably painful all round.
    8 projects | dev.to | 2 Sep 2020
    For example, in my case, I want subscriptions. Mockttp (the internals of HTTP Toolkit's proxy) accepts GraphQL queries over websockets, so it can stream intercepted request details to clients as they come in, with a GraphQL schema like this:
    8 projects | dev.to | 2 Sep 2020
    HTTP Toolkit's internal APIs (e.g. for defining HTTP mocking rules and querying traffic) use GraphQL throughout. Those APIs started off built on Apollo, because that's the very widely recommended & documented option. The overly complex setup required to do so caused a long stream of serious pain:

What are some alternatives?

When comparing oral and mockttp you can also consider the following projects:

mockoon - Mockoon is the easiest and quickest way to run mock APIs locally. No remote deployment, no account required, open source.

mitmproxy - An interactive TLS-capable intercepting HTTP proxy for penetration testers and software developers.

Express - Fast, unopinionated, minimalist web framework for node.

httptoolkit-server - The backend of HTTP Toolkit

IOXY - MQTT intercepting proxy

next-page-tester - DEPRECATED - DOM integration testing for Next.js

remote-docker-aws - Remote Docker for local development hosted using AWS

apollo-server - 🌍  Spec-compliant and production ready JavaScript GraphQL server that lets you develop in a schema-first way. Built for Express, Connect, Hapi, Koa, and more.


Brackets - An open source code editor for the web, written in JavaScript, HTML and CSS.

express-graphql - Create a GraphQL HTTP server with Express.

multipass - Multipass orchestrates virtual Ubuntu instances