//emails-for-saas providers ↗
← all providers
Testing

MailCatcher

Tiny Ruby-based local SMTP catcher.

overview

MailCatcher is a Ruby gem that runs a local SMTP server on port 1025 and a web UI on 1080. It is common in Rails projects and shows the HTML, plain-text, and raw-source version of each captured message. Development is slow, so Mailpit is usually the stronger default today.

for SaaS product teams

A SaaS product sends on behalf of its customers, so the deciding factors are tenant isolation, whether suppressions can be scoped rather than global, and whether support can answer why one specific account did not receive one specific email. Lifecycle automation and transactional sending usually need to coexist.

Against trial expiry notices, dunning, onboarding sequences, and per-tenant transactional mail, MailCatcher covers none of the capabilities this audience leans on (multi-tenant support, event stream, the suppressions API, scheduling, and webhook coverage), so it fits only where those needs are genuinely absent.

  • Multi-tenant: No
  • Event stream: No
  • Suppressions API: No
  • Operating since: Not published
  • Scheduling: No
  • Best published rate per 1,000: Tiers not published in comparable form
  • Deliverability: Not applicable.
  • Webhooks: No
  • Starts at: Free
deliverability

Not applicable.

best for

Rails teams already running it in development.

not great for

Non-Ruby projects, which get a lighter setup from Mailpit.

pros
  • Installs as a Ruby gem, familiar in Rails stacks
  • SMTP on 1025 with a web UI and JSON API on 1080
  • Shows HTML, plain text, and raw source per message
cons
  • Release cadence is slow with little active feature work
  • Needs a Ruby runtime where Mailpit ships a static binary
  • HTML rendering trails newer catchers

Features at a glance

API Yes
SMTP Yes
SDKs None
Webhooks No
Templates none
React Email No
Batch send No
Scheduled send No
Suppressions No
Multi-tenant No
Inbound parsing No
Event stream No
Idempotency keys No
Dedicated IP No

Appears in rankings

Compared with