Compare
Up to three tools. The table shows the data as-is, without picking a “best”.
| Field | marimo | Hurl | act |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platforms | Universal | Universal | GitHub |
| Local support | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Paid API | No | No | No |
| License | Apache-2.0 | Apache-2.0 | MIT |
| Stars | 23382 | 19290 | 72501 |
| Last activity | October 29, 2026 | October 17, 2026 | — |
| Install complexity | EASY | Easy; API and CLI knowledge required | — |
| Category | Workflow, Data | Testing, DevOps | Testing, Git, DevOps |
| Best use | Ideal for a data analyst, Python developer, or small team that wants reproducible experiments, clear Git review, and an interactive report or internal tool from the same source. It is not a replacement for governed BI or a production service requiring enterprise scaling and permissions. | 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. | 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. |