Pros of mountebank

• More comprehensive documentation and examples
• Larger community and more active development
• Supports a wider range of protocols and use cases

Cons of mountebank

• Steeper learning curve for beginners
• Requires more setup and configuration
• Potentially overkill for simple mocking scenarios

Code Comparison

mountebank:

const mb = require('mountebank');
const settings = {
  port: 2525,
  pidfile: './mb.pid',
  logfile: './mb.log',
  protofile: './protofile.json',
  ipWhitelist: ['*']
};
mb.create(settings);

mountebank>:

const mb = require('mountebank');
mb.create({
  port: 2525,
  pidfile: './mb.pid',
  logfile: './mb.log'
});

The code comparison shows that mountebank> has a simpler setup process with fewer configuration options, while mountebank offers more granular control over settings like protocol files and IP whitelisting.

Both repositories serve as testing tools for creating test doubles, but mountebank is more feature-rich and widely adopted. mountebank> appears to be a simplified version or fork of the original mountebank project, potentially aimed at users who prefer a more streamlined experience with fewer configuration options.

Pros of WireMock

• More extensive HTTP protocol support, including WebSockets
• Better integration with Java ecosystem and JUnit
• More flexible request matching capabilities

Cons of WireMock

• Primarily Java-focused, less language-agnostic than Mountebank
• Steeper learning curve for non-Java developers
• Less built-in support for non-HTTP protocols

Code Comparison

WireMock stub example:

stubFor(get(urlEqualTo("/api/resource"))
    .willReturn(aResponse()
        .withStatus(200)
        .withHeader("Content-Type", "application/json")
        .withBody("{\"message\":\"Hello, World!\"}")));

Mountebank stub example:

{
  "predicates": [{ "equals": { "path": "/api/resource", "method": "GET" } }],
  "responses": [{
    "is": {
      "statusCode": 200,
      "headers": { "Content-Type": "application/json" },
      "body": { "message": "Hello, World!" }
    }
  }]
}

Both WireMock and Mountebank are powerful service virtualization tools, but they cater to different ecosystems and use cases. WireMock excels in Java environments with its deep integration and extensive HTTP capabilities, while Mountebank offers a more language-agnostic approach and broader protocol support beyond HTTP.

Pros of json-server

• Simpler setup and configuration for basic REST API mocking
• Built-in support for JSON data sources without additional scripting
• Automatic generation of routes based on JSON structure

Cons of json-server

• Limited functionality for complex API behaviors and responses
• Lacks advanced features like TCP/UDP protocol support and HTTPS
• No built-in support for stateful imposter behavior

Code Comparison

json-server:

// Start the server with a JSON file
json-server --watch db.json

// Define custom routes
{
  "/api/*": "/$1",
  "/:resource/:id/show": "/:resource/:id"
}

mountebank:

{
  "imposters": [{
    "port": 4545,
    "protocol": "http",
    "stubs": [{
      "predicates": [{ "equals": { "method": "GET", "path": "/users" } }],
      "responses": [{ "is": { "statusCode": 200, "body": [{"id": 1, "name": "John"}] } }]
    }]
  }]
}

While json-server excels in simplicity for basic REST API mocking, mountebank offers more advanced features for complex API simulation. json-server is ideal for quick prototyping and simple scenarios, whereas mountebank provides greater flexibility and control over imposter behavior, supporting multiple protocols and sophisticated response manipulation.

Pros of MSW

• Runs in the browser, allowing for more realistic mocking of network requests
• Seamless integration with modern JavaScript frameworks and testing libraries
• Supports both REST and GraphQL APIs out of the box

Cons of MSW

• Limited to mocking HTTP and HTTPS requests only
• Requires more setup and configuration for non-browser environments

Code Comparison

MSW:

import { rest } from 'msw'
import { setupServer } from 'msw/node'

const server = setupServer(
  rest.get('/api/user', (req, res, ctx) => {
    return res(ctx.json({ name: 'John Doe' }))
  })
)

Mountebank:

const mb = require('mountebank');
const settings = {
  imposterPort: 4545,
  imposterProtocol: 'http',
  stubs: [{
    responses: [{ is: { statusCode: 200, body: { name: 'John Doe' } } }],
    predicates: [{ equals: { method: 'GET', path: '/api/user' } }]
  }]
};

Both MSW and Mountebank are powerful tools for mocking API responses, but they cater to different use cases. MSW excels in browser-based testing and modern JavaScript environments, while Mountebank offers more flexibility for various protocols and server-side testing scenarios. The choice between them depends on the specific requirements of your project and testing environment.

Pros of Mockoon

• User-friendly GUI for creating and managing mock APIs
• Supports OpenAPI specification import and export
• Cross-platform desktop application (Windows, macOS, Linux)

Cons of Mockoon

• Limited scripting capabilities compared to Mountebank
• Lacks advanced features like TCP/SMTP protocol support
• No built-in load testing or performance analysis tools

Code Comparison

Mockoon (JSON configuration):

{
  "uuid": "mockoon-api",
  "endpoints": [
    {
      "method": "GET",
      "path": "/users",
      "responses": [
        {
          "status": 200,
          "body": "[{\"id\": 1, \"name\": \"John\"}]"
        }
      ]
    }
  ]
}

Mountebank (JavaScript imposter):

{
  port: 4545,
  protocol: 'http',
  stubs: [{
    predicates: [{ equals: { method: 'GET', path: '/users' } }],
    responses: [{ is: { statusCode: 200, body: '[{"id": 1, "name": "John"}]' } }]
  }]
}

Both tools offer API mocking capabilities, but Mockoon focuses on simplicity and ease of use through its GUI, while Mountebank provides more advanced features and flexibility through its programmable approach.