# Comparison of endpoint types

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

<table><thead><tr><th width="131">Name</th><th>Advantages</th><th>Disadvantages</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><strong>gRPC</strong></td><td><ul><li>can use code-generated stubs in various languages</li><li>supports streaming and bidirectional communication (HTTP/2)</li><li>small wire binary sizes, faster transmission</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>based on HTTP/2, not available in some browsers</li><li>learning curve (mostly due to Protobuf)</li></ul></td></tr><tr><td><strong>REST</strong></td><td><ul><li>ubiquitous</li><li>client libraries in all languages, faster implementation</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>only supports unary request-response communication (HTTP/1.1)</li><li>bigger over-the-wire message sizes (JSON)</li><li><strong>heavily rate-limited by public endpoints</strong></li></ul></td></tr><tr><td><strong>CometBFT RPC</strong></td><td><ul><li>easy to use</li><li>has endpoints that allow querying txs by event type</li><li>has websocket support for streaming data</li></ul></td><td><ul><li>bigger over-the-wire message sizes (JSON)</li><li>due to scalability issues, many documented endpoints <strong>may be disabled or heavily rate-limited by public endpoints</strong></li></ul></td></tr></tbody></table>