Performance
Ironcall vs the field
Raw numbers comparing startup time, memory usage and binary size across the major HTTP API clients.
Placeholder data
Real measurements are in progress. Values shown are estimates based on publicly available information and will be replaced with reproducible benchmark results. Last updated: —
| Metric | Ironcall← ours | Postman | Insomnia | Bruno |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Startup time Cold start to first interactive frame | ~180 ms | ~3 200 ms | ~2 100 ms | ~800 ms |
RAM idle Empty workspace, no collections loaded | ~45 MB | ~340 MB | ~210 MB | ~120 MB |
RAM with 50 requests One collection, 50 requests, responses visible | ~62 MB | ~410 MB | ~280 MB | ~155 MB |
CPU idle Background CPU after startup, no activity | <1% | ~3% | ~2% | ~1% |
Binary size Installed application size on disk | ~12 MB | ~320 MB | ~180 MB | ~90 MB |
* All values are estimates. See methodology below.
Methodology
Test environment
- Hardware: — (to be specified)
- OS: — (to be specified)
- Versions: — (to be specified)
Conditions
- Each tool measured in isolation
- Cold start: process killed between runs
- RAM measured via OS process monitor
- Minimum of 5 runs, median reported
Why does this matter?
Most API clients are built on Electron, which bundles a full Chromium browser and a Node.js runtime. Ironcall is built on Tauri, which uses the OS's native webview and a Rust backend. The result is a dramatically smaller binary, lower idle memory, and a startup time measured in milliseconds rather than seconds.
Reproduce these results
Benchmark scripts and raw results will be published once measurements are finalized. If you run your own tests and get different numbers, let us know.
See the difference yourself — download Ironcall and compare.
Download Free