r2rtf
The clinical-report table engine learned Chinese, then learned to leave RTF entirely
Comparison · Analytics
rbmi vs webmockr
A side-by-side editorial comparison of rbmi and webmockr — release velocity, themes, recent moves, and the top alternatives to consider.
rbmi vs webmockr: at a glance
What is rbmi?
Reference-based multiple imputation for trials, now shipping without Bayesian support by default.
rbmi implements reference-based multiple imputation for longitudinal clinical trial data with missing values — the estimand machinery regulators expect for handling intercurrent events and dropout. The consequential recent change was 1.3.0 moving rstan from a hard dependency to Suggests, which takes Bayesian imputation out of the default install. Since then the work has been documentation and nomenclature discipline: 1.6.1 standardized on MNAR over a mixed NMAR/MNAR vocabulary and deprecated the nmar.rm argument accordingly.
What is webmockr?
The stubbing library added httr2 support, then spent a year cutting itself free of everything else
webmockr intercepts HTTP requests in R tests and returns stubbed responses, and since 1.0.0 it covers all three clients that matter — httr, httr2 and crul. The releases through 2025 have been about shedding dependencies: internal R6 classes unexported in 2.1.0, crul demoted from Imports to Suggests in the same release, and the mutual dependency with vcr severed in 2.2.0. The package now installs and runs without pulling in the rest of the rOpenSci HTTP stack.
rbmi vs webmockr: editorial side-by-side
rbmi
2.5ANALYTICS
Reference-based multiple imputation for trials, now shipping without Bayesian support by default.
◆ Current state
rbmi implements reference-based multiple imputation for longitudinal clinical trial data with missing values — the estimand machinery regulators expect for handling intercurrent events and dropout. The consequential recent change was 1.3.0 moving rstan from a hard dependency to Suggests, which takes Bayesian imputation out of the default install. Since then the work has been documentation and nomenclature discipline: 1.6.1 standardized on MNAR over a mixed NMAR/MNAR vocabulary and deprecated the nmar.rm argument accordingly.
◆ Where it's heading
The package is optimizing for adoption friction over feature breadth. Dropping a compiled Stan dependency from the default install, deprecating a bespoke seed argument in favor of base set.seed(), and aligning lsmeans() behavior and weight naming with emmeans all point the same direction — behave like a conventional R package rather than a specialized one. Documentation work in 1.6.1 covering @return on every exported function and executable examples reads as preparation for validation scrutiny rather than user demand.
◆ Prediction
Given the FAQ vignette's validation statement and the recent documentation completeness pass, the next work is more likely qualification and estimand documentation than new imputation methods.
webmockr
0.0ANALYTICS
The stubbing library added httr2 support, then spent a year cutting itself free of everything else
◆ Current state
webmockr intercepts HTTP requests in R tests and returns stubbed responses, and since 1.0.0 it covers all three clients that matter — httr, httr2 and crul. The releases through 2025 have been about shedding dependencies: internal R6 classes unexported in 2.1.0, crul demoted from Imports to Suggests in the same release, and the mutual dependency with vcr severed in 2.2.0. The package now installs and runs without pulling in the rest of the rOpenSci HTTP stack.
◆ Where it's heading
Two arcs run in sequence. The first is coverage — multiple queued responses in 0.7.0, basic auth mocking, async through crul, then httr2 — building out what can be stubbed. The second, starting with 2.0.0, is correctness and independence: stubs are now deleted if an error occurs mid-construction rather than lingering half-built, partial matching arrives for bodies and queries, and the dependency graph is pruned release by release. The 2.2.0 split from vcr landed within a minute of crul's release taking mocking control into its own clients.
◆ Prediction
RequestPattern is documented as still exported in 2.1.0 but slated for removal, so the next major release is where that lands. Expect continued dependency pruning rather than new client support — the three clients that exist are already covered.
Alternatives to rbmi and webmockr
Other Analytics products tracked by Sparkpulse, ranked by recent ship velocity. Each card links to a full editorial trajectory and lets you pivot into a head-to-head comparison with either rbmi or webmockr.
DoseFinding
New stewardship at openpharma, then two releases adding the methods MCP-Mod was missing
crul
crul took mocking back from webmockr and made it a property of the client itself
dendroNetwork
Six releases, six identical bodies — the feed carries the package abstract instead of release notes
chattr
chattr deleted every LLM integration it had written and outsourced the lot to ellmer
cloudml
Six years since the last functional change, and Google renamed the service it wraps in the release before that
See all rbmi alternatives → · See all webmockr alternatives →
Recent activity from rbmi and webmockr
Latest ship moves from both products, interleaved chronologically. ⚡ = editorial spark.
- 22d agorbmiMNAR nomenclature standardized, documentation completed
- 1y agowebmockrvcr dependency severed
- 1y agowebmockrInternal classes unexported; crul becomes an optional dependency
- 1y agowebmockrFailed stub construction cleans up; partial matching extends to bodies and queries
- 1y agorbmirstan demoted to Suggests, Bayesian imputation now opt-in ⚡
- 2y agowebmockrhttr2 joins httr and crul as a supported client ⚡
- 2y agorbmirbmi v1.2.5
- 3y agowebmockrQueued responses, body matching and integer status codes fixed
- 3y agowebmockrRegex URI matching fixed
Frequently asked questions
What is the difference between rbmi and webmockr?
They serve adjacent needs but don't currently overlap on shipped themes. rbmi is currently shipping more aggressively (velocity 2.5 vs 0.0), with 0 editorial sparks in the last 30 days against 0. See the at-a-glance table above for a side-by-side breakdown of velocity, recent sparks, and editorial themes.
Is rbmi better than webmockr?
Sparkpulse doesn't pick a winner — we score release velocity, not feature parity. rbmi is currently shipping more aggressively (velocity 2.5 vs 0.0), with 0 editorial sparks in the last 30 days against 0. For your specific use case, the alternatives sections above list other Analytics products to evaluate alongside.
What are the best alternatives to rbmi?
Top rbmi alternatives in Analytics are ranked by recent ship velocity. Browse the "rbmi alternatives" section above for the current picks, or visit /alternatives/rbmi for the full list with editorial commentary on each.
What are the best alternatives to webmockr?
Top webmockr alternatives in Analytics are ranked by recent ship velocity. Browse the "webmockr alternatives" section above for the current picks, or visit /alternatives/webmockr for the full list with editorial commentary on each.