Head-to-Head: Mountebank vs Nock Analysis


v2.9.1(about 1 month ago)

This package is actively maintained.The package doesn't have any types definitionsNumber of direct dependencies: 22Monthly npm downloads

Mountebank is a powerful testing tool that allows you to test complex distributed systems and microservices. It provides a simple, scalable, and flexible way to set up and simulate APIs, databases, and other systems. Mountebank makes it easy to create mock responses, allowing you to test your systems with realistic use cases and edge cases. It also supports a wide range of protocols and formats, including HTTP, HTTPS, TCP, JMS, and more.

Alternatives: WireMock, Mockito, Jasmine

Tags: testingmockmicroservicesdistributed-systemshttptcp


v13.3.3(about 2 months ago)

This package is actively maintained.Types definitions are bundled with the npm packageNumber of direct dependencies: 4Monthly npm downloads

Nock is a powerful and flexible HTTP mocking and expectations library for Node.js. It allows you to simulate HTTP requests and responses in your tests, making it easier to write reliable and deterministic tests for applications that interact with external APIs.

Alternatives: sinon, axios-mock-adapter, fetch-mock

Tags: javascripttestingmockinghttpapi



Mountebank is a powerful stubbing and mocking library that allows you to create and manage mock services. It provides the ability to create custom HTTP, TCP, and SMTP servers for testing, mocking, and stubbing. Nock, on the other hand, is a library specifically designed for mocking HTTP requests and responses. It intercepts outgoing HTTP requests and allows you to define customized responses. While Nock is focused solely on HTTP mocking, Mountebank provides a broader range of functionality with support for multiple protocols.

Ease of Use

Nock is known for its simplicity and ease of use. It provides a straightforward API for intercepting and mocking HTTP requests, making it easy to set up and use in tests. Mountebank, on the other hand, has a steeper learning curve due to its broader range of features and protocols. It requires more configuration and setup to create and manage mock services. However, once set up, Mountebank provides more advanced options and flexibility.


Nock integrates seamlessly with popular testing frameworks like Mocha and Jest. It allows you to easily mock HTTP requests in your unit tests. Mountebank, on the other hand, is more suitable for end-to-end or integration testing scenarios where you need to create complete mock services. It can be integrated into different test runners and frameworks to simulate complex service interactions.


Mountebank is designed to handle complex service interactions and can simulate multiple services working together. It supports the creation of dynamic responses and behaviors, making it suitable for testing complex scenarios. Nock, on the other hand, is more focused on individual HTTP requests and responses, making it a lightweight option for simpler use cases. If you need to simulate complex service interactions or test multiple services together, Mountebank is a better choice.

Community and Maintenance

Both Mountebank and Nock have active communities and are actively maintained. Mountebank has been around for longer and has a larger user base. It has regular updates and releases. Nock is also well-maintained and has a strong community. When it comes to community support and maintenance, both packages are reliable choices.