Compare
Up to three tools. The table shows the data as-is, without picking a “best”.
| Field | act | restic | Hurl |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platforms | GitHub | Universal | Universal |
| Local support | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Paid API | No | No | No |
| License | MIT | BSD-2-Clause | Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 72437 | 36756 | 19271 |
| Last activity | — | September 25, 2026 | October 17, 2026 |
| Install complexity | — | متوسط: CLI ومستودع وجدولة منفصلة / Moderate: CLI, repository, and separate scheduling | Easy; API and CLI knowledge required |
| Category | Testing, Git, DevOps | Security, DevOps | 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. | Best for an individual developer or small team that needs encrypted, testable backups of project files and exported database dumps. It works with local or remote storage and can be scheduled by the operating system. It does not replace application-consistent database exports or recovery testing. | 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. |