Fiddler(HTTP) Vs Wireshark (TCP/UDP)

转载 2016年05月31日 12:02:58

Recently, I came across an issue where a CGI application is not responding. Symptom is Firefox displaying:

Transferring data from localhost...

But the thing is I cannot see any traffic from Firebug's Net panel, and the browser just stays on the same stage forever.

I am thinking about the ways to debug this application but I cannot see the source code or any of its compiled Java/C++ components, therefore I reckon a HTTP network level of diagnostics is a good start.

I have little experience in Fiddler and Wireshark, just wondering will they get better feedback/statistics in the HTTP network level? I've heard Wireshark is advanced but could possibly introduce a large volume of traffic so system admins don't like it very much. At this time I think Firebug doesn't really show me enough information.

I need to collect information so that I can then forward to client as proof.

shareimprove this question

closed as primarily opinion-based by S.L. BarththeMayerShankar DamodarankarthikAndy Korneyev Jan 9 '15 at 7:06

Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.


7 Answers

Wireshark, Firebug, Fiddler all do similar things - capture network traffic.

  • Wireshark captures any kind of a network packet. It can capture packet details below TCP/IP(Http is at the top). It does have filters to reduce the noise it captures.

  • Firebug tracks each request the browser page makes and captures the associated headers and the time taken for each stage of the request (DNS, receiving, sending, ...). 

  • Fiddler works as a http/https proxy. It captures each http request the computer makes and records everything associated with it. Does allow things like converting post varibles to a table form and editing/replaying requests.  It doesn't, by default, capture localhost traffic in IE, see the FAQ for the workaround.

shareimprove this answer

None of the above. Use Charles Proxy. It's the best network/request information collecter that I have ever come across. You can view and edit all outgoing requests, and see the responses from those requests in several forms, depending on the type of the response. It costs 50 dollars for a license, but you can download the trial version and see what you think.

If you're on Windows, then I would just stay with Fiddler.

shareimprove this answer
Ah, that appears to be awesome. – Macy Abbey Nov 24 '10 at 3:10
Would it be possible for you to elaborate on how Charles is different from something like Fiddler? What you have mentioned above seems very much like fiddler. I currently use fiddler but would be glad to use something better if i get something more out of it. – InSane Nov 24 '10 at 3:36
Charles and Fiddler are architecturally quite similar. Charles runs on a Mac; Fiddler won't. Charles is written in Java and costs money. Fiddler is written in C#, free, and easily extensible in .NET. – EricLaw Nov 24 '10 at 3:41 
It actually works on Windows, Mac OSX and Linux – Casebash Feb 10 '12 at 5:13
Why is it better than wireshark? – Goles Aug 12 '13 at 16:51

The benefit of WireShark is that it could possibly show you errors in levels below the HTTP protocol. Fiddler will show you errors in the HTTP protocol. 

If you think the problem is somewhere in the HTTP request issued by the browser, or you are just looking for more information in regards to what the server is responding with, or how long it is taking to respond, Fiddler should do. 

If you suspect something may be wrong in the TCP/IP protocol used by your browser and the server (or in other layers below that), go with WireShark.

shareimprove this answer
Indeed, Wireshark can uncover proxy and nat server issues, it also can be used on both the client you are connection from as on the server. – Glenner003 Jan 15 '14 at 10:50 

Fiddler is the winner every time when comparing to Charles. 

The "customize rules" feature of fiddler is unparalleled in any http debugger. The ability to write code to manipulate http requests and responses on-the-fly is invaluable to me and the work I do in web development. 

There are so many features to fiddler that charles just does not have, and likely won't ever have. Fiddler is light-years ahead.

【HTTP】Fiddler(二) - 使用Fiddler做抓包分析

1.查看http请求 2.复制、保存和重放http请求 3.fiddler命令 4.session状态 5.设置断点 6.模拟http请求 7.流模式...
  • ohmygirl
  • ohmygirl
  • 2014年01月04日 23:34
  • 299182

推荐一些socket工具,TCP、UDP调试、抓包工具. 还记得我在很久很久以前和大家推荐的Fiddler和Charles debugger么?他们都是HTTP的神器级调试工具,非常非常的好用。好工具

还记得我在很久很久以前和大家推荐的Fiddler和Charles debugger么?他们都是HTTP的神器级调试工具,非常非常的好用。好工具能让你事半功倍,基本上,我是属于彻头彻尾的工具控。...
  • wutiyixin
  • wutiyixin
  • 2014年06月09日 19:04
  • 2929


  • gb4215287
  • gb4215287
  • 2017年02月27日 00:57
  • 4069


首先下载一份代码,用来发送数据包git clone 然后对这份文件里面的代码进行编译然后安装一个抓包工具tcpd...
  • pp634077956
  • pp634077956
  • 2016年09月12日 18:54
  • 3379


还记得我在很久很久以前和大家推荐的Fiddler和Charles debugger么?他们都是HTTP的神器级调试工具,非常非常的好用。好工具能让你事半功倍,基本上,我是属于彻头彻尾的工具控。 ...
  • haigenwong
  • haigenwong
  • 2014年05月21日 16:22
  • 38790

Fiddler(HTTP) Vs Wireshark (TCP/UDP)

Wireshark vs Firebug vs Fiddler - pros and cons? [closed] up vote51down votef...
  • screaming
  • screaming
  • 2016年05月31日 12:02
  • 2244


Fiddler是一个http调试代理,它能 够记录所有的你电脑和互联网之间的http通讯,Fiddler 可以也可以让你检查所有的http通讯,设置断点,以及Fiddle 所有的“进出”的数据(指co...
  • done58
  • done58
  • 2016年03月22日 12:02
  • 1560

联调扯皮的分歧解决办法------抓包(wireshark, tcpdump, fiddler)

你用java打日志, 我用C++打日志, 联调扯皮一堆事, 抓包才客观, 而且抓包不需要重新去加代码编译。 爽爽哒。...
  • stpeace
  • stpeace
  • 2016年03月02日 23:12
  • 2955


  • jaryguo
  • jaryguo
  • 2016年11月03日 15:22
  • 2693


  • jdsjlzx
  • jdsjlzx
  • 2016年05月09日 23:30
  • 7159
您举报文章:Fiddler(HTTP) Vs Wireshark (TCP/UDP)