Comparison of endpoint types
The following table compares the differences between the gRPC, REST and CometBFT RPC endpoints.
Last updated
The following table compares the differences between the gRPC, REST and CometBFT RPC endpoints.
Last updated
| Name | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
gRPC
can use code-generated stubs in various languages
supports streaming and bidirectional communication (HTTP/2)
small wire binary sizes, faster transmission
based on HTTP/2, not available in some browsers
learning curve (mostly due to Protobuf)
REST
ubiquitous
client libraries in all languages, faster implementation
only supports unary request-response communication (HTTP/1.1)
bigger over-the-wire message sizes (JSON)
heavily rate-limited by public endpoints
CometBFT RPC
easy to use
has endpoints that allow querying txs by event type
has websocket support for streaming data
bigger over-the-wire message sizes (JSON)
due to scalability issues, many documented endpoints may be disabled or heavily rate-limited by public endpoints