Keploy vs Hurl
Keploy auto-generates API tests from real traffic using eBPF with zero code changes, while Hurl is a CLI tool that runs HTTP requests defined in plain text files. Keploy generates tests automatically from production traffic, whereas Hurl provides a lightweight, readable format for manually defining and chaining HTTP request tests.
How They Work Differently
Architectural differences that affect your team's workflow, cost, and velocity.
KeployKeploy captures real API traffic at the kernel level and generates complete test suites with dependency mocks. No manual test file creation is needed. Tests reflect actual production behavior patterns.
HurlHurl uses plain text .hurl files to define HTTP requests with headers, bodies, and assertions. It is a fast Rust-based CLI tool that runs these files sequentially, supporting request chaining, variable capture, and response validation. Tests are version-controlled text files.
How They Compare
Click any row to see real-world KPI impact across industries.
KeployOpen Source · 17K+ Stars
HurlWhen to Use Each Tool
Specific scenarios where each tool delivers the most value for your engineering team.
Keploy is the better fit when you need to...
- You want auto-generated tests without writing any test files
- Your team needs tests based on real production traffic patterns
- You need auto-generated mocks for dependency isolation
- You want zero-code-change setup with eBPF capture
- You need to handle non-deterministic data automatically
Hurl is the better fit when you need to...
- You prefer readable plain text test files that are easy to review
- Your team wants lightweight HTTP testing without heavy tooling
- You need to chain HTTP requests with variable capture between steps
- You want fast Rust-based CLI execution with minimal overhead
- You prefer version-controlled test definitions over recorded traffic
Real-World Scenarios
How each tool handles the challenges your team actually faces.
API Smoke Testing
Keploy generates comprehensive test suites from traffic, going beyond smoke tests to full regression coverage. Tests are created automatically from real interactions.
Hurl excels at quick API smoke tests with readable .hurl files. You can write a few lines to test critical endpoints and commit them alongside your code. Fast to write and easy to understand.
API Test Suites
Keploy generates large test suites from production traffic without manual effort. Hundreds of test cases can be created from a recording session, covering actual usage patterns.
Hurl test suites are hand-crafted plain text files. Each test is readable and explicit, but building large suites requires manual effort. Tests are precise but time-consuming to create.
CI Pipeline Validation
Keploy replays recorded tests with mocked dependencies in CI. Fast execution and no external service dependencies make it reliable in CI environments.
Hurl runs fast in CI with minimal overhead. Being a single Rust binary, it starts instantly. However, tests run against live services unless you provide separate mock infrastructure.
FAQs
No. Hurl requires you to write .hurl test files manually. Keploy auto-generates tests from recorded traffic. Hurl is a test runner; Keploy is a test generator. If you want auto-generated tests, choose Keploy. If you want hand-crafted readable tests, choose Hurl.
Hurl has a simpler concept — plain text files with HTTP requests. Keploy has more capabilities with eBPF capture and auto-generation. For quick, readable API tests, Hurl is simpler. For comprehensive auto-generated suites, Keploy is more powerful.
Yes. Use Keploy for auto-generated regression tests from production traffic and Hurl for hand-crafted smoke tests and specific scenario tests. Keploy provides broad coverage while Hurl provides targeted, readable tests.
Both are fast in CI. Hurl is a single Rust binary with near-instant startup. Keploy replays recorded tests with mocked dependencies. Hurl may need live services while Keploy runs fully isolated with mocks.
No. Hurl tests run against live HTTP services and does not generate or manage mocks. Keploy auto-generates mocks for all dependencies from recorded traffic. If you need isolated tests without external services, Keploy is the better choice.
Looking for a Hurl Alternative?
Engineering teams evaluating Hurl alternatives often compare it with Keploy for API testing and regression coverage. Keploy captures real production traffic via eBPF and auto-generates tests with dependency mocks — requiring zero code changes. If you're considering switching from Hurl or comparing Hurl and Keploy side by side, the key differences come down to how tests are generated (traffic-based vs manual), how dependencies are mocked (automatic vs configured), and what infrastructure changes are needed (none vs SDK/sidecar/containers).
Join the Keploy community
Follow updates, ask questions, share feedback, and ship faster with other Keploy builders.
