Compare
Up to three tools. The table shows the data as-is, without picking a “best”.
| Field | Ruff | Miller | Hurl |
|---|---|---|---|
| Platforms | Universal, 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 | 50435 | 10055 | 19304 |
| Last activity | November 5, 2026 | October 21, 2026 | October 17, 2026 |
| Install complexity | EASY | EASY | Easy; API and CLI knowledge required |
| Category | Code Review, Testing | Workflow, Data | Testing, DevOps |
| 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. | 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. |