head to head · open source

Bruno vs runn

Bruno has 47,022 GitHub stars, 2,888 forks, 1,831 open issues and last shipped yesterday. runn has 649 stars, 58 forks, 27 open issues and last shipped yesterday. Bruno leads on adoption by 7,145% (47,022 vs 649 stars). Bruno is written in JavaScript under MIT; runn is written in Go under MIT. Bruno has attracted 6% as many forks as stars, runn 9%. runn was the more recently maintained of the two, and both are self-hostable with no licence fee. The two share 3 topic tags (api-testing, automation, http-client), so they are genuine substitutes rather than adjacent tools.

Two open source projects, one decision. Both are free and self-hostable — the differences are community size, license terms, language stack and release pace.

Bruno ★ 47K runn ★ 649 category Developer Tools

← all 8884 open source comparisons

Side by side

Bruno runn
GitHub stars ★ 47K ★ 649
License MIT MIT
Written in JavaScript Go
Last push 2026-09-17 2026-09-17
Forks ⑂ 2.9K ⑂ 58
Self-hosting Yes Yes
Data ownership Your server Your server

pick Bruno if

  • You weight community size — 47K stars and counting
  • You want the MIT license terms
  • Your stack matches JavaScript
  • You value the larger contributor base for long-term maintenance

full Bruno profile →

pick runn if

  • You want the runn feature set and don't need the biggest community
  • You prefer the MIT license terms
  • Your stack matches Go
  • You evaluated both and runn fits your workflow better

full runn profile →

About Bruno

Bruno is a lightweight, open source API client and IDE for exploring and testing APIs, built for developers and teams who want their request collections stored as plain text in a folder on their own filesystem rather than in a vendor's cloud.

read the full Bruno overview →

About runn

runn is a Go package and command line tool that runs operations following a scenario, built for developers, testers, and automation engineers who need scenario based testing, workflow automation, or a test helper inside Go test suites.

read the full runn overview →

More in Developer Tools

OpenCode ★ 208K Langflow ★ 155K Supabase ★ 110K pi ★ 107K fastapi ★ 102K Neovim ★ 102K

Related comparisons

fastapi vs bruno hoppscotch vs bruno fastapi vs hoppscotch fastapi vs insomnia fastapi vs one-api fastapi vs openapi-specification fastapi vs openapi-generator fastapi vs redoc opencode vs pi opencode vs openhands opencode vs paperclip opencode vs orca opencode vs cline opencode vs aider opencode vs continue opencode vs tabby opencode vs neovim opencode vs zed langflow vs neovim langflow vs zed opencode vs kilocode opencode vs codeedit neovim vs zed langflow vs kilocode

More API Development & Testing projects

Compare either of these against the rest of the API Development & Testing field.

Bruno vs fastapi Bruno vs Hoppscotch Bruno vs Insomnia Bruno vs one-api Bruno vs OpenAPI-Specification Bruno vs openapi-generator Bruno vs redoc Bruno vs SafeLine Bruno vs Mobile-Security-Framework-MobSF Bruno vs grpc-gateway Bruno vs Yaak Bruno vs hurl

Frequently asked questions

Is Bruno or runn more popular?

Bruno has 47,022 GitHub stars and runn has 649. Bruno has the larger community by that measure.

Are Bruno and runn free?

Both are open source. Bruno is licensed under MIT and runn under MIT. Neither carries a licence fee.

What is the difference between Bruno and runn?

Bruno is written in JavaScript and runn in Go. The practical differences are community size, licence terms, language stack and release cadence — all compared in the table above.

Which should I choose, Bruno or runn?

Choose Bruno if you want the larger community (47,022 stars) or its MIT licence terms. Choose runn if its feature set, stack or MIT licence fits better. Both are self-hostable.