# API Testing in CI: Hoppscotch vs Powerduck

**Short answer:** Both can run in CI, but the source of the checks differs. A collection-based runner executes the requests you authored; a spec-first runner derives the checks from the contract and verifies conformance. Use the first to run a fixed set of calls; use the second to prove the responses match the API.

## What a collection runner does in CI

It executes the saved requests and their assertions, which is a reliable way to run a known set of checks. It is only as current as the collection, and it verifies the assertions rather than the whole contract.

## What a spec-first runner does

| Property | Collection runner | Spec-first |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Checks come from | Authored requests | The contract |
| Coverage | What was saved | Declared operations |
| Conformance | Assertions only | Full schema check |
| On spec change | Update collection | Reflects the spec |

## The failure that CI should catch

A response that violates the contract but passes the authored assertions is the gap. A spec-first runner checks the full response, so the violation fails the build even if no one wrote an assertion for it.

## How to combine them

Run the fixed behavioral calls and the contract checks as two stages. The first proves the flows work; the second proves the responses are valid.

This is part of the [Powerduck vs Hoppscotch comparison](https://www.powerduck.com/blog/powerduck-vs-hoppscotch/). Next, read [OpenAPI-first vs collection-first](https://www.powerduck.com/blog/openapi-first-vs-collection-first/).