Mockoon vs Faker
Feature checklists rarely decide anything. What decides it is the pricing metric, who has to write the tests, and which limitation you can live with.
Entry price
From $100 per month (Team, billed annually, up to 5 members)
Free tierFree and open source
Open sourceWhat drives the bill
The metric that actually scales your invoice.
Free locally and forever; the paid cloud tier adds hosted mocks and team sync. Team covers 5 members, 3 cloud-deployed mocks and 100k calls a month, with Enterprise on a quote. Work emails get a 14-day trial, others 7 days with a card.
Free and open source. You pay in engineering time and CI minutes.
Free tier
The desktop app and CLI are free and open source.
Everything, self-hosted
Open source
MIT
MIT
Self-hostable
No-code authoring
Languages
Platforms
Fits teams
Adoption
Widely used
Mockoon · since 2017
Category standard
OSS community · since 2010
Strengths
- Genuinely a minute from download to a working mock API.
- Dynamic templating with faker-style helpers produces realistic responses.
- Proxy mode mocks only the routes you need and passes the rest through.
- Realistic, locale-aware data catches layout bugs that 'test test test' never will.
- Seedable, so generated data is reproducible when a test fails.
- Available in every major language with a similar API.
Limitations
- Desktop-first; sharing mocks across a team needs the paid cloud or a committed config file.
- HTTP only.
- Less suited to complex stateful behaviour than WireMock.
- Generated data has no referential integrity or business rules — that is your job.
- Random data makes failures harder to reproduce unless you seed deliberately.
- Not a substitute for production-shaped data at realistic volume.
Best for
Front-end developers unblocking themselves while a backend is still being built.
Every project that needs fixtures more realistic than placeholder strings.
Pricing last reviewed August 2026 and is indicative only — confirm on each vendor’s own page.