What is the difference between REST, GraphQL, and gRPC?

APIs aren't just for web apps anymore; they're powering everything from mobile experiences to internal microservices to AI agents that automate workflows. And the way these systems talk to each other is a core part of API architecture. Whether you're building for web, mobile, or internal services, the protocol you choose (REST, GraphQL, or gRPC) shapes how data flows, how easy your APIs are to consume, and how well they scale.

These styles reflect different philosophies of API design. REST follows a resource-oriented model, GraphQL focuses on flexible querying, and gRPC emphasises speed, contracts, and streaming. As modern architectures grow more distributed and real-time, choosing the right approach becomes critical.

This guide compares REST, GraphQL, and gRPC in detail, breaking down how they work, where they shine, and when to use each in your API stack.

Quick Comparison: REST vs GraphQL vs gRPC

Here’s a table for a quick comparison between REST, GraphQL, and gRPC.

What is REST?

REST (Representational State Transfer) is an architectural style for designing networked applications. Introduced by Roy Fielding in his 2000 doctoral dissertation, REST quickly became the most widely adopted standard for building web APIs. It relies on a stateless, client-server communication model and uses standard HTTP methods like GET, POST, PUT, and DELETE to perform operations on resources identified by URLs.

In a RESTful API, each URL represents a resource (such as a user, product, or order), and the HTTP method applied to that URL defines the operation. For example, GET /users fetches a list of users, while POST /users creates a new one. Responses are typically returned in JSON format, making them easy to work with in modern web and mobile applications.

REST’s simplicity, scalability, and compatibility with HTTP have made it the default choice for public and internal APIs alike. It also integrates well with browser-based clients, which natively understand HTTP.

However, REST has limitations in scenarios where clients need fine-grained control over the data they fetch. Overfetching (getting too much data) or underfetching (not enough) can lead to inefficient usage, especially for mobile or frontend-heavy applications. That’s where alternatives like GraphQL and gRPC come in, offering more flexibility or performance depending on the use case.

What is GraphQL?

GraphQL is a query language and runtime for APIs that allows clients to request exactly the data they need. Developed by Facebook in 2012 and open-sourced in 2015, GraphQL was designed to solve limitations in traditional REST APIs, especially around overfetching and underfetching of data.

Unlike REST, which exposes multiple endpoints for different resources, GraphQL uses a single endpoint to handle all interactions. Clients send structured queries that specify the fields and nested relationships they want, and the server responds with a JSON object matching that shape. This approach gives frontend and mobile developers more flexibility and reduces the number of network requests needed to populate a view.

GraphQL APIs are strongly typed, with a schema that defines available data types and operations. This makes them introspectable, enabling features like auto-generated documentation and powerful developer tooling.

While GraphQL excels in scenarios with complex or dynamic data needs, it’s not always the best fit for every architecture. It can introduce complexity on the server side, especially in resolving nested queries efficiently. Additionally, since it runs over HTTP POST requests by default, it doesn’t leverage HTTP caching as naturally as REST.

Still, for many teams, particularly those building rich client applications, GraphQL offers a highly flexible and efficient alternative to REST.

What is GRPC?

gRPC is a high-performance, open-source Remote Procedure Call (RPC) framework developed by Google. It enables communication between services using defined methods rather than resource-based endpoints. Built on top of HTTP/2 and using Protocol Buffers (Protobuf) for serialisation, gRPC is designed for speed, efficiency, and language-agnostic communication, making it a popular choice for internal microservices and distributed systems.

Unlike REST or GraphQL, which focus on manipulating data over standard HTTP, gRPC treats communication as function calls. Developers define services and methods in a .proto file (a Protobuf schema), and gRPC auto-generates client and server code in multiple programming languages. This enforces a strong contract between services and reduces boilerplate.

gRPC supports advanced features like streaming (client, server, and bidirectional), multiplexing, built-in authentication, and deadlines/timeouts—capabilities that are especially useful for real-time and high-throughput environments. Since it uses a binary format, gRPC is also more compact and faster over the wire compared to JSON-based APIs.

However, gRPC is less suited for browser-based clients without additional tooling, and its binary payloads are harder to inspect manually. It's best used within internal systems, between microservices, or in mobile and IoT environments where performance and bandwidth efficiency are critical.

Key differences between REST, GraphQL, and GRPC

While all three technologies, REST, GraphQL, and gRPC, enable client-server communication, they differ in philosophy, performance, tooling, and real-world use. Choosing the right one depends on the specific needs of your architecture, teams, and use cases. Here are the key aspects in which they differ.

1. API design philosophy

• REST is resource-centric with each endpoint representing a resource (like /users), and operations are defined using HTTP verbs (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE).
• GraphQL is query-centric and clients define what data they want, and the server returns exactly that.
• gRPC is a method-centric service that exposes functions (like GetUser) defined in .proto files, emphasising RPC over HTTP-style interactions.

2. Data fetching flexibility

• REST returns fixed responses per endpoint, which can lead to over-fetching or under-fetching.
• GraphQL gives clients full control to request exactly the fields they need, reducing payload bloat.
• gRPC follows a contract-based model; the shape of the request and response is fixed but highly efficient, with less flexibility for selective field fetching.

3. Protocol and transport

• REST and GraphQL both run over HTTP/1.1 using standard request/response cycles.
• gRPC uses HTTP/2, enabling features like multiplexing and persistent connections, which significantly reduce latency and improve performance in service-to-service communication.

4. Serialisation format

• REST and GraphQL primarily use JSON, which is human-readable but bulky.
• gRPC uses Protobuf, a compact binary format that’s faster to serialise/deserialise and lighter on bandwidth, ideal for low-latency environments.

5. Streaming support

• REST has limited streaming support (requires extra tooling like WebSockets or SSE).
• GraphQL does not support streaming natively, although extensions exist (like GraphQL subscriptions).
• gRPC supports client-side, server-side, and bidirectional streaming out of the box, making it ideal for real-time and long-lived connections.

6. Developer experience and tooling

• REST has mature, well-known tooling (Postman, Swagger/OpenAPI) and wide developer familiarity.
• GraphQL offers modern tooling like GraphiQL and Apollo, with introspection and auto-generated docs built in.
• gRPC has powerful tooling but a steeper learning curve, especially around .proto schemas and code generation workflows.

7. Client and browser support

• REST and GraphQL are natively browser-friendly and easy to integrate into frontend apps.
• gRPC is not directly usable in browsers without a proxy or translation layer, making it less ideal for public APIs and frontend integrations.

8. Caching

• REST works well with HTTP-level caching via headers (ETag, Cache-Control).
• GraphQL’s flexibility makes traditional caching more complex, often requiring custom client-side solutions.
• gRPC’s binary nature means standard HTTP caching doesn't apply; caching must be implemented at the application or infrastructure level.

9. Use case alignment

• REST is ideal for simple CRUD-based applications, public APIs, and web services.
• GraphQL shines in applications with complex, nested data requirements, especially frontend-heavy apps.
• gRPC is optimised for internal microservices, real-time communication, and scenarios requiring high performance or low latency.

Advantages and disadvantages of using REST, GraphQL, and GRPC

Each of these API styles comes with its own set of trade-offs. The right choice depends on factors like performance needs, team expertise, client flexibility, and infrastructure maturity. Below is a clear snapshot of what each approach offers and where it might fall short.

REST

Advantages

• Simple and intuitive to implement and consume
• Works out of the box with browsers and HTTP clients
• Rich ecosystem (Postman, Swagger/OpenAPI, etc.)
• Easy to cache using HTTP headers
• Great for public-facing and CRUD-based APIs

Disadvantages

• Over-fetching or under-fetching of data is common
• Versioning can become messy over time
• Limited real-time or streaming support
• Rigid structure where each endpoint has a fixed response
• Can require multiple round-trips for related resources

GraphQL

Advantages

• Flexible data fetching allowing clients to get exactly what they need
• Reduces the number of API requests (especially for nested data)
• Strongly typed schema enables auto-generated docs and tooling
• Ideal for frontend-heavy applications
• Great developer experience with tools like GraphiQL and Apollo

Disadvantages

• Caching is more complex than REST
• Overhead on the server to resolve dynamic queries
• Performance can degrade with deeply nested queries
• Lacks native support for file uploads and streaming
• No built-in support for HTTP status codes or error handling standards

gRPC

Advantages

• Extremely fast due to Protobuf and HTTP/2
• Built-in support for streaming (client/server/bidirectional)
• Auto-generates client and server code in multiple languages
• Strongly typed contracts ensure consistent interfaces
• Ideal for internal microservices and real-time systems

Disadvantages

• Not browser-friendly and requires a proxy for frontend use
• Harder to debug due to binary payloads
• Steeper learning curve with .proto and toolchains
• Limited built-in support for human-readable documentation
• Not ideal for simple or public-facing APIs

How to choose between REST, GraphQL, and GRPC: Use Cases

There’s no one-size-fits-all when it comes to API design. Each style—REST, GraphQL, and gRPC—shines in specific scenarios. Your choice should depend on your system’s architecture, data needs, latency requirements, and target clients. Here’s when to use each:

REST: Best for simplicity and broad compatibility

• Public APIs: REST’s simplicity and browser compatibility make it ideal for public-facing APIs (e.g., Twitter API, GitHub API) where wide adoption matters.
• CRUD-based applications: For systems with straightforward Create, Read, Update, Delete logic like blog platforms or e-commerce backends, REST is a natural fit.
• Third-party integrations: REST is easy to consume by external partners and tools that rely on standardised HTTP protocols and JSON payloads.
• Backend for web/mobile apps: REST works well for basic data delivery to SPAs or mobile clients when payload control and real-time needs are limited.

GraphQL: Best for flexibility and complex frontends

• Frontend-heavy applications: GraphQL allows frontend teams to fetch exactly what they need for dynamic UIs, making it ideal for React, Vue, or mobile apps.
• Multiple clients with varying needs: When different clients (web, mobile, internal dashboards) need different slices of the same data, GraphQL prevents endpoint sprawl.
• Aggregating data from multiple sources: GraphQL can stitch together data from databases, REST APIs, and microservices into a single queryable schema.
• Rapid product iteration: Startups and teams building fast-evolving UIs benefit from GraphQL’s flexibility, as no backend changes are needed for new frontend requirements.

gRPC: Best for performance and internal microservices

• Microservice-to-microservice communication: gRPC excels in service meshes and backend systems that need efficient, contract-driven communication across services.
• Real-time streaming applications: Use gRPC for bidirectional data flows in apps like live chat, video streaming, telemetry, or IoT data pipelines.
• High-throughput internal APIs: Internal systems that process large volumes of structured data (e.g., fraud detection engines, payment processors) benefit from gRPC’s speed.
• Polyglot environments: In backend systems using multiple languages (Go, Java, Python, etc.), gRPC ensures consistency through auto-generated client/server code.

FAQs

1. Is GraphQL replacing REST?

No, GraphQL isn’t replacing REST, it’s complementing it. REST is still widely used, especially for simple CRUD operations and public APIs. GraphQL is preferred for flexible data fetching in frontend-heavy applications. Many modern architectures use both, choosing GraphQL where precision is needed and REST where simplicity and caching are more important.

2. Can GraphQL be used with gRPC?

Yes, GraphQL can be used alongside gRPC in layered architectures. For example, a GraphQL API can aggregate data by calling underlying gRPC services. This pattern allows teams to expose a flexible frontend interface while keeping the backend optimised for performance. It’s especially useful in microservice-based systems with mixed protocol requirements.

3. When should I not use gRPC?

Avoid using gRPC when targeting browser clients or third-party developers. It’s not natively supported in browsers and lacks human-readable payloads. If your API needs public accessibility, simple integration, or robust caching, REST or GraphQL is likely a better fit. gRPC shines in internal systems, not public or UI-facing ones.

4. Is gRPC faster than GraphQL?

Yes, gRPC is generally faster than GraphQL. It uses Protocol Buffers for compact binary serialisation and runs over HTTP/2, enabling low latency and efficient streaming. GraphQL, while powerful, uses JSON over HTTP and involves more runtime computation to resolve flexible queries, which can increase overhead in performance-critical systems.

‍