iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
No—not as a universal rule. gRPC often sends compact binary Protocol Buffers over HTTP/2, while REST-style APIs often send readable JSON. That combination can improve performance for some workloads, but REST does not require JSON or HTTP/1.1, and the available benchmark does not establish a general 7× speed advantage. The reported results vary by metric and test conditions.
REST and JSON are not the same thing
REST describes an architectural style for APIs; it does not specify that messages must be plain-text JSON. JSON is a common format for REST-style HTTP APIs because people can read it easily and browsers and general-purpose HTTP tools support it broadly. Those APIs can also use HTTP/2. As Microsoft Learn puts it, “HTTP/2 is not exclusive to gRPC.” Microsoft Learn’s gRPC and HTTP API comparison explains the distinction.
gRPC is a specific remote procedure call framework, designed for HTTP/2 and commonly used with Protocol Buffers (Protobuf). Protobuf encodes structured messages in binary form. That can make data compact and efficient to serialize, but it also means the wire payload is not readily readable without the schema and suitable inspection tools.
Where the “7× faster” claim comes from—and what it leaves out
The gRPC project’s 2016 Android benchmark did not establish one universal sevenfold result. It measured different things and reported different ratios. Its serialization tests found Protobuf about 3× faster than JSON in the tested setup. For gRPC unary-call latency compared with a simple RESTful HTTP JSON service, it reported gRPC as 5×–10× faster through the 95th percentile, with average latency around 2 ms. That range is a result from that particular test, not a guaranteed multiplier for other APIs.
The RPC comparison ran on an Android client, ping-ponged the same message for 60 seconds, and compared unary gRPC calls with a simple RESTful HTTP JSON service. It was not a controlled comparison of every possible REST and gRPC implementation, and the article does not establish that the same advantage holds when application work, databases, different networks, or different message patterns dominate latency. David Cao’s Google-authored gRPC benchmark article, dated July 26, 2016, details the measurements.
Different metrics produce different ratios
In the same benchmark, Protobuf serialization was reported as about 3× faster than JSON. Deserialization results depended on message size: JSON was about 1.5× faster for small messages below 1 KB, while Protobuf was about 2× faster for larger messages above 15 KB. Protobuf serialization was well over 5× faster than gzipped JSON in the tested comparison. These numbers concern particular operations and test cases, not end-to-end speed in every service.
The article also reported about 3× better bandwidth for payloads of 100–1,000 bytes and about 2× for payloads of 10–100 KB. It found streaming calls more than 2× faster than unary calls, but did not compare streaming gRPC with an equivalent HTTP streaming setup. None of these figures can be combined into a single general-purpose speed claim.
Recommended Free Tools
What can make gRPC faster
Binary message encoding
Protobuf avoids the textual representation used by JSON and can reduce the bytes needed to represent a structured message. Its serialization and deserialization costs depend on the schema, implementation, message size, and runtime; it is not guaranteed to win every operation. Smaller payloads can help when network transfer is a meaningful part of the work.
Rank #3
HTTP/2 connection management
gRPC is designed for HTTP/2, whose multiplexing can carry multiple streams over a connection. That can be useful for concurrent calls. But an HTTP API can also use HTTP/2, so HTTP/2 alone does not distinguish gRPC from REST-style APIs.
Streaming
For workloads that exchange a sequence of messages, a long-lived stream can avoid repeatedly setting up separate calls. Streaming is not automatically faster for every interaction, and it brings design concerns such as handling reconnects and coordinating concurrent work.
How gRPC and JSON HTTP APIs differ in practice
| Consideration | gRPC with Protobuf | HTTP API with JSON |
|---|---|---|
| Message format | Compact binary Protobuf is commonly used; inspecting messages requires the schema and appropriate tools. | Readable JSON is a common choice and is easy to inspect by hand. |
| Transport | Designed for HTTP/2. | Can use HTTP/2 too; REST-style APIs are not restricted to HTTP/1.1. |
| Browser access | Ordinary browser support is limited; supported setups can use gRPC-Web or JSON transcoding. | Broad support through browsers and general HTTP tooling. |
| Development workflow | Uses .proto contracts and generated client and server code, which become part of the build process. | JSON and ordinary HTTP tools are straightforward to use for many clients and debugging tasks. |
| Often a good fit | Internal service-to-service calls, streaming, polyglot services, or constrained networks where its properties suit the workload. | Public or browser-facing APIs, interoperability, simple clients, and cases where human inspection is useful. |
These are selection criteria, not fixed boundaries. Some systems expose both gRPC and JSON interfaces. Google Cloud’s overview of gRPC, OpenAPI, and REST discusses their differing roles and trade-offs.
Costs and constraints to weigh before choosing gRPC
- Contracts and generated code: Clients and servers need gRPC-capable software, and teams must manage .proto definitions and generated code in their build workflows.
- Inspection and debugging: Binary payloads are not human-readable on the wire. Developers need the schema and tools that can decode or inspect them.
- Browser clients: Standard browsers cannot directly call ordinary gRPC services. gRPC-Web or JSON transcoding may support browser scenarios in compatible stacks, but add implementation considerations.
- Large messages: gRPC messages are loaded into memory before sending and deserialized into memory on receipt. For large binary payloads, streaming or a direct HTTP streaming endpoint may better fit the application.
- Streaming operations: Long-lived streams can reduce repeated call overhead when the interaction fits, but require attention to reconnects and concurrency.
Microsoft’s gRPC performance guidance covers implementation considerations, including message handling and streaming.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to make a meaningful performance comparison
Before treating a benchmark as evidence that one approach is faster, identify what it measured. Serialization throughput, request latency, requests per second, bandwidth, and payload size are different outcomes. A result for one does not establish the others.
- Compare equivalent operations and functionality, not a streaming call against a unary call or a minimal server against a full application.
- Record client and server languages, runtimes, versions, message schema and sizes, compression, HTTP version, concurrency, and network conditions.
- Separate transport and serialization costs from application or database work, and say whether those costs are included.
- Report latency percentiles as well as averages; a mean can hide slow requests in the tail.
- Test representative traffic from the system being built. A published benchmark is evidence about its own setup, not a substitute for workload-specific measurements.
The gRPC benchmarking guide describes the project’s performance-test infrastructure across languages and scenarios. It is not a current universal benchmark proving that gRPC is seven times faster than REST.
Which should you choose?
Choose gRPC when typed service contracts, generated clients, HTTP/2, and streaming suit the clients and workload—and when the team can support the tooling and browser requirements. Choose a JSON HTTP API when broad client compatibility, browser access, human-readable messages, or straightforward debugging matter more. If performance is the deciding factor, benchmark both approaches using equivalent implementations and representative requests. Neither “REST” nor “gRPC” alone determines the speed of the finished system.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
