Compare
Up to three tools. The table shows the data as-is, without picking a “best”.
| Field | Ruff | Hurl | Lychee |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platforms | Universal, GitHub | Universal | Universal |
| Local support | Yes | Yes | Yes |
| Paid API | No | No | No |
| License | MIT | Apache-2.0 | MIT OR Apache-2.0 |
| Stars | 50435 | 19304 | 4093 |
| Last activity | November 5, 2026 | October 17, 2026 | October 26, 2026 |
| Install complexity | EASY | Easy; API and CLI knowledge required | — |
| Category | Code Review, Testing | Testing, DevOps | Testing, Workflow |
| Best use | Best for an individual Python developer or small team that wants consistent linting, import organization, and formatting locally, in editors, and in CI. It adds reviewable rules, safe-by-default fixes, and a pinnable version. It does not replace tests, type checking, or business-logic review, and migration from Black or Flake8 should be tested on a branch. | 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. | For documentation authors and small teams checking references locally or in CI. Start with a specific file and interpret findings; it does not establish complete site or login functionality. |