Comparison of endpoint types

The following table compares the differences between the gRPC, REST and CometBFT RPC endpoints.

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