Comparison of endpoint types
The following table compares the differences between the gRPC, REST and CometBFT RPC endpoints.
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
Last updated