head to head
Mailtrap vs Mailpit
Hosted staging inbox versus local-first capture.
Side by side
| Feature | Mailtrap | Mailpit |
|---|---|---|
| Tagline | Originally a staging inbox, now a sender too. | Modern local SMTP catcher. |
| Free tier | 4,000/mo (sending), free testing tier | Free, MIT-licensed |
| Starts at | $10/mo for 10,000 testing or sending | Free |
| Pricing model | tiered | self-hosted |
| API | Yes | Yes |
| SMTP | Yes | Yes |
| SDKs | node, python, go, ruby, php, elixir | None |
| Templates | basic | none |
| React Email | No | No |
| Webhooks | Yes | No |
| Inbound | No | No |
| Multi-tenant | Yes | No |
| Idempotency | No | No |
| Dedicated IP | Yes | No |
| Deliverability | Good and improving. Independent tests place it near the top tier for the past two years. | Not applicable; capture-only. |
| DX score | 8/10 | 9/10 |
| Best for | Teams that want one vendor for staging-inbox plus production sending. | Replacing MailHog in any local dev setup. |
Mailtrap
pros
- ›Best-in-class staging inbox
- ›Spam, blacklist, and HTML check on captured emails
- ›Single product that covers testing and sending
- ›Generous free tier for both flows
cons
- ›Sending product is younger than Postmark or SendGrid
- ›Reporting is less detailed than dedicated transactional providers
- ›Some testing features locked to higher plans
Mailpit
pros
- ›Single binary or docker image
- ›Same ports and API as MailHog (drop-in)
- ›Active maintenance
cons
- ›Local development only