Compare
Up to three tools. The table shows the data as-is, without picking a “best”.
| Field | act | Miller | Hurl |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platforms | GitHub | Universal, MCP, Claude Code, Codex, Cursor | Universal |
| Local support | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Paid API | No | No | No |
| License | MIT | BSD-2-Clause | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 72437 | 10049 | 19271 |
| Last activity | — | October 21, 2026 | October 17, 2026 |
| Install complexity | — | EASY | Easy; API and CLI knowledge required |
| Category | Testing, Git, DevOps | Workflow, Data | Testing, DevOps |
| Best use | Best for a developer or small team that repeatedly edits GitHub Actions workflows and wants to test a job before pushing. It provides a local run log, while a final GitHub check remains necessary. It is not suitable when exact hosted-runner parity is required. | Ideal for developers, data analysts, and operators who need to clean a CSV export, inspect JSON Lines, or summarize a large file from the terminal without starting a Python project. Use it for quick, repeatable file processing; concurrent transactions and advanced visual analysis still call for a database or complementary analytics tool. | Best for a developer or small team that wants repeatable API checks with explicit conditions stored beside the code. It links request data and identifies failing assertions without repeating manual inspection. It does not replace browser tests or test-environment setup; curl may be enough for a one-off request. |