Postman vs SwaggerHub comparison

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

"I rate Postman as a ten out of ten."

"We use it for REST API testing. Feature-wise, it is pretty lightweight. It is pretty fast, and we don't have to do a lot of things. We can just simply go and post our endpoint, and it gives different kinds of authorizations. We usually use authentication 2.0, which is the most common industry practice. So, it has the support for authorization through 2.0."

"It allowed us to understand the working and performance of the APIs."

"The scripting capabilities in Postman are excellent."

"The tool is simple and easy."

"We can test APIs. We know if they are functional or throwing any errors."

"The most valuable features of the solution are that it is easy to use and user-friendly."

"The scalability is endless."

"It is a stable solution."

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

"One of the best features of SwaggerHub is how it allows me to create APIs and control the evolution of APIs within an organization."

"One of the best features of SwaggerHub is how it allows me to create APIs and control the evolution of APIs within an organization."

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

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

"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."

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

"Postman does not have a check-in balance. Essentially what I mean by that is if there is something that is already configured on a particular device, it just overrides it without checking whether you really want to override it or not."

"Something that could be better is the inclusion of another type of test, for example, end-to-end tests."

"The solution has some user interface difficulties when conducting environment collections."

"To get this email reporting function, we have to integrate Postman with Newman. If the two are not integrated, we won't be getting all these things in one group."

"I don't think there is any need for comments on improvements."

"I would like that if you click on one of the fields you should be able to see the entire row of fields, names, and values."

"There are some limitations regarding large result sets in Postman. When dealing with several hundred records, accessing all the information can be challenging."

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

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

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

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

"Some areas of SwaggerHub that could be improved include the interface between the code editor and the visual editor, the integration with private APIs, which currently requires an upgraded account."

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

"The scalability aspect of SwaggerHub can be improved. It becomes a bit unreliable when the load is increased and isn't up to par with expectations for scalability."

"We are using the free version that is available."

"I am using the free option."

"The solution is open-source and free."

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

"I use the tool's free version."

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

"This solution offers a free version."

"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."

"The tool is cheap."

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