gRPC is 10x Faster Than REST? Why Your Team Hasn't Switched

Hey, remember yesterday when you mentioned that “gRPC is 10x faster than REST” thing? I’ve been thinking about it a lot, so let’s have a proper chat about it today.

Let’s Start with the Truth

You know I’m the type who likes to dig deep. The first time I heard “gRPC is 10x faster than REST,” I was pretty surprised. You see this number everywhere—tech conferences, architecture discussions, performance benchmarks. Sometimes backed by fancy charts, sometimes just passed around as common knowledge.

But here’s the problem—that claim hides way too many details.

It’s like when a car salesman tells you “this car has a top speed of 300 km/h.” Sounds impressive, right? But in your daily city driving, which road actually lets you hit 300? It’s not that the salesman is lying to you, he’s just telling you half the truth.

What Does “10x Faster” Actually Mean?

Let’s first figure out what people are measuring when they say “10x faster.” Usually it’s one of three things:

• Throughput: how many requests per second a service can handle
• Latency: how long individual requests take
• Payload sensitivity: how performance changes as data size grows

Most viral benchmarks focus on throughput—small requests, repeated over and over, connections all warmed up. In that specific setup, gRPC can indeed be astonishingly fast.

But real systems aren’t that clean. When you’re actually building something, you care about p95 and p99 tail latency, handling different client behaviors, authentication, retries, monitoring… once all that enters the picture, that pretty number shrinks fast.

It’s like that guy who says “I run at a 4-minute pace average.” He didn’t tell you that was on a track. Ask him to run a 4-minute mile during rush hour in the subway and see what happens.

The benchmark isn’t lying—it’s just incomplete.

Foundational Difference #1: HTTP/2 vs HTTP/1.1

Most REST APIs still run on HTTP/1.1. It’s simple, ubiquitous, well understood—but it shows its cracks under high concurrency.

Under HTTP/1.1, requests on a single connection are effectively serialized. Even with keep-alive, you run into head-of-line blocking. What does that mean? It’s like waiting in line at a restaurant—the person in front orders a dish that takes 10 minutes, and everyone behind them has to wait, even if you just want to buy a drink.

Want parallelism? Open more connections. But more connections mean more TCP handshakes, more TLS negotiation, more kernel state, more context switching… like opening more checkout counters, each one needs staff and maintenance.

gRPC runs on HTTP/2 by default, and this is completely different. HTTP/2 supports multiplexing—multiple independent streams over a single TCP connection. It’s like the restaurant reformed—no more checkout counter lines, everyone scans to order, the kitchen processes everything simultaneously, whatever’s ready comes out first.

Figure: HTTP/1.1 serial blocking vs HTTP/2 multiplexing

This eliminates application-layer head-of-line blocking. The result isn’t just higher throughput, more importantly it’s more predictable latency under load, especially at the tail.

This predictability is where the “gRPC is faster” claim really comes from.

Foundational Difference #2: Protocol Buffers vs JSON

The second performance difference comes from serialization.

REST APIs almost universally use JSON. JSON is readable, flexible, easy to debug. You can open your browser and see it, call it with curl and know what you get back. But parsing it is expensive. Every request involves parsing strings, looking up keys, dynamic type checking, allocating memory…

It’s like shipping a package—handwrite the address, fill out the form, weigh it, calculate shipping, tedious but everyone understands it.

gRPC uses Protocol Buffers—binary, schema-driven. Fields are numerically encoded, layouts are known ahead of time, parsing avoids most of JSON’s overhead. It’s like shipping companies using barcodes internally—scan it and it’s recognized, no one needs to read the address.

Conceptually, the difference looks like this:

JSON path: Parse text → Allocate strings → Decode numbers → Map keys to fields → Validate structure

Protobuf path: Read bytes → Map numeric tags → Assign fields → Done

Figure: JSON’s 5 steps vs Protobuf’s 3 steps

But the actual gain depends on your data size. For small data (a few hundred bytes), Protobuf can be 3-5x faster, since parsing overhead dominates. For medium data (dozens of KB), it’s about 2-3x, still a gap but less dramatic. Once you hit big data (1MB+), maybe just 1.2-1.5x—at that point network transfer is the bottleneck, serialization speed isn’t the main story anymore.

So Protobuf’s biggest gain is actually less CPU usage and less memory churn, not saving network bandwidth.

Where gRPC’s Performance Edge Really Shows Up

gRPC’s advantages are most visible in specific types of systems—high-QPS internal service meshes, low-latency financial or trading systems, real-time multiplayer games or streaming control planes, systems with strict p99 or p99.9 latency budgets.

In these environments, average latency isn’t what matters most—tail latency is the key. A few extra milliseconds at p99 can trigger retries, queue buildup, missed SLAs. HTTP/2 multiplexing and Protobuf efficiency smooth out those tails.

It’s like driving—average speed of 40 km/h is fine for daily commuting, but if you’re a taxi driver, passengers care about arriving on time during the worst traffic. That tail latency segment is your lifeline.

If your system doesn’t care about tail latency, you won’t see most of gRPC’s advantages.

Why Most Teams Haven’t Switched (And Are Right)

Despite the performance edge, REST remains dominant—not because teams don’t know better.

gRPC has real costs: Protobuf generation and version management tooling friction, harder ad-hoc debugging (can’t just curl it), limited native browser support, steeper learning curve for new engineers.

REST’s biggest advantage isn’t speed—it’s organizational simplicity. It integrates cleanly with gateways, logging, monitoring, docs, third-party clients. For many teams, that simplicity matters way more than shaving a few milliseconds off internal calls.

It’s like buying a car—0-100 km/h in 3 seconds sounds great, but what you actually need is easy parking, cheap repairs, available parts. Those performance numbers look exciting, but your real needs might be something else entirely.

Engineering is about optimizing the whole system, not just the hot path.

The Overengineering Trap

I’ve seen this failure pattern too many times: a team sees a benchmark, adopts gRPC “for performance,” never defines an actual latency budget, and ends up with more complexity, harder on-call debugging, slower iteration, and no user-visible improvement.

Performance engineering without clear constraints is just complexity with a narrative.

gRPC is powerful—but power you don’t need tends to backfire. It’s like buying a professional espresso machine, then drinking instant coffee every day. That machine just becomes an expensive space-hog.

A Decision Framework That Doesn’t Lie

Don’t ask “is gRPC faster?” Ask this:

Do you have a strict p99 latency budget (<20ms)? → Yes

Are most clients internal and controlled? → Yes

Are requests small, frequent, latency-sensitive? → Yes

→ gRPC might be worth it

If you answer “no” early in this flow, REST is probably the better choice.

Performance decisions should follow constraints, not benchmarks.

How Successful Teams Actually Migrate

Teams that successfully adopt gRPC tend to do it incrementally—starting with internal services only, keeping REST at the edge for external clients, measuring p95 and p99 before and after, expanding only when gains are clear and sustained.

This avoids ideology and lets data justify the added complexity.

Speed Is a Constraint, Not a Virtue

gRPC really can be 7-10x faster than REST—under the right conditions, for the right workloads, with the right discipline.

But speed alone isn’t a virtue. It’s a response to a constraint.

Most teams haven’t switched because REST is fast enough, simpler, and better aligned with their real bottlenecks. That’s not laziness—that’s engineering judgment.

Benchmarks don’t ship products. Trade-offs do.

Found this article helpful?

If this article helped clarify your thinking on gRPC vs REST, give it a like to help more people see it. Share it with friends or colleagues struggling with the same question, follow Dream Beast Programming for more practical tech articles. Have questions or thoughts? Drop a comment below.

Your support is the biggest motivation for me to keep creating!