Bruno vs Insomnia

Insomnia uses a local database (NeDB/SQLite style) to store data, which is opaque to the user. While it offers 'Git Sync,' this feature has historically been complex to configure, often acting as a bridge between their internal database and a remote repo rather than true file-system manipulation. For seamless collaboration, Insomnia pushes users toward their proprietary Cloud Sync. While effective, it introduces a dependency on their servers and creates a silo where API data lives separately from the codebase, often leading to drift between the API definition and the actual implementation.

Insomnia has had a turbulent history regarding offline capability. After the backlash of 2023, they reinstated a 'Local Vault' or Scratchpad mode that allows for offline work. However, the UX constantly nudges users toward cloud login to unlock full features like advanced collaboration or encrypted backups. While you *can* use it offline, the application is architected as a cloud-client first. Users must be vigilant to ensure they haven't accidentally synced a workspace containing production secrets to Insomnia's cloud, creating a potential data leakage vector.

As of 2026, Bruno has matured significantly in its support for non-REST protocols. Its GraphQL support is robust, offering schema fetching, documentation exploration, and query autocompletion comparable to dedicated tools. WebSocket support is stable for debugging real-time apps. However, gRPC support, while functional, can sometimes feel less polished than the REST experience, occasionally lacking the deep proto-file discovery features found in more mature enterprise tools. It handles the 95% use case perfectly but may lack edge-case configuration options for complex streaming setups.

Insomnia offers a powerful chaining capability, allowing values from one request to be fed into another via a UI-driven tag system. This is excellent for non-coders but can become cumbersome to debug in complex workflows. It also supports JavaScript scripting, but the environment is more sandboxed and proprietary compared to Bruno's open approach. While the 'Inso' CLI exists for automation, it often requires a paid subscription or complex setup to interface with the cloud-synced data, making it less attractive for quick-and-dirty CI integration.

Insomnia uses a hierarchical environment system (Base environment + Sub-environments) which is very flexible and allows for complex cascading variables. However, the distinction between what is synced and what is local can be blurry if using their cloud features. While they have introduced 'Private' environment variables that don't sync, the management of these requires navigating their proprietary UI. Exporting and sharing environments often involves sending JSON files manually if not using the paid team sync features.

Bruno sports a utilitarian, clean interface. It doesn't waste pixels on flashy gradients or marketing banners. The multi-tab interface is fast and responsive. However, it can feel slightly 'spartan' compared to Insomnia. Some advanced configuration options are exposed via text config rather than toggle switches, which power users love but might intimidate juniors. The lack of a 'drag-and-drop' aesthetic for everything emphasizes its nature as a tool for engineers who are comfortable with code.

Bruno's ecosystem is growing rapidly but is still younger than Insomnia's. It doesn't rely heavily on a plugin architecture; instead, it encourages users to use standard npm packages within scripts. While this is powerful, it lacks a 'Store' where you can one-click install a theme or a specific authentication helper. The community is active in sharing scripts and snippets, but the integrated 'plugin marketplace' experience is minimal compared to established competitors.