| Feature | gRPC | REST |
|---|---|---|
| Protocol | HTTP/2 + Protocol Buffers (binary) | HTTP/1.1 + JSON (text-based) |
| Data Format | Protobuf (compact, fast) | JSON (human-readable) |
| Performance | High (binary, multiplexed, compressed) | Moderate (verbose JSON) |
| Communication | Bi-directional streaming, multiplexing | Only request-response |
| Contract | Strongly typed via .proto files | Loose, relies on conventions |
| Language Support | Auto-codegen in many languages | Manual structure, less automation |
| Browser Friendly | (Not native) | Yes |
Benefits of gRPC Over REST
1. Bi-directional Streaming (Real-time Communication)
- REST = one request, one response.
- gRPC = server and client can stream messages continuously.
Useful in: live chats, IoT telemetry, video streaming, etc.
2. Performance
- Uses Protocol Buffers → binary format → compact & fast
- Works over HTTP/2 → multiplexed connections (no connection reuse bottleneck)
~5–10x faster than REST+JSON in most scenarios.
3. Code Generation (Client and Server Stubs)
- Define
.protofile once → auto-generate code for client & server in multiple languages.
Eliminates manual serialization/parsing/boilerplate code.
4. Built-in Authentication and Deadlines
- Supports TLS, deadlines/timeouts, and cancellation natively in the protocol.
Better control in microservices + more reliable APIs.
5. Strong Typing and Contract-first Design
- If proto breaks → compile-time failure, not runtime surprises like in REST.
Downsides of gRPC
| Issue | Description |
|---|---|
| Not browser-native | Browsers don’t support HTTP/2 + Protobuf natively |
| Debugging is harder | Protobuf is binary — can’t just curl or inspect easily |
| More complexity | Needs codegen, proto management, tight coupling |
| Not ideal for external/public APIs | JSON is better for developer adoption |
When to Use What?
Use gRPC when:
| Scenario | Why gRPC? |
|---|---|
| Microservices talking to each other | Performance, streaming, tight contracts |
| Real-time streaming (video, sensors, stock) | Full-duplex communication |
| Internal systems with high throughput | Protobuf = speed, HTTP/2 = efficient |
| Polyglot environments | gRPC supports many languages via codegen |
| You need deadlines, retry logic, cancellation | Built into the protocol |
Use REST when:
| Scenario | Why REST? |
|---|---|
| Public-facing APIs | Browser native, easily testable |
| Simple CRUD apps | Simpler tooling, better developer familiarity |
| You want human-readable payloads | JSON is readable, easier debugging |
| No performance bottlenecks | REST is good enough for many business apps |
Real-World Examples
| Use Case | Protocol |
|---|---|
| Payment Gateway APIs | REST |
| Netflix service-to-service backend | gRPC |
| Mobile app APIs (iOS/Android) | REST |
| Real-time ride tracking (Uber-like) | gRPC |
| Weather or public info APIs | REST |
| Internal inventory sync (millions/day) | gRPC |
Summary
| Feature | gRPC | REST |
|---|---|---|
| Performance | Fast | Slower |
| Streaming | Full support (client/server) | No |
| Tooling | Auto codegen via Protobuf | Manual (Swagger optional) |
| Browser support | Needs proxy/gateway | Yes |
| Learning curve | Steeper | Easier |
Final Thoughts
gRPC is best for internal service communication where performance, efficiency, and type-safety matter.
REST is best for external APIs, where simplicity, readability, and wide compatibility are more important.
Leave a Reply