We Switched From REST to gRPC for the Performance, Got It, and Then Spent a Year Fighting Everything That Used to Be Trivial. Two Years of Running Both Taught Me the Real Tradeoff.
This title could be clearer and more informative.Try out Clickbait Shieldfor free (5 uses left this month).
A two-year retrospective on running REST and gRPC side by side in production concludes that gRPC delivers on its performance promises but imposes a steep, ongoing cost in legibility and universal tooling support. REST's human-readable, universally-inspectable HTTP requests made debugging, logging, and integration trivial, while gRPC's binary format required special tooling for even basic troubleshooting. The author argues that for most services, the operational convenience of REST outweighs gRPC's speed advantage, and that gRPC is best reserved for high-volume internal service-to-service communication where performance is the actual bottleneck.
Table of contents
We ran both in production for two years, REST for one set of services and gRPC for another, and we moved several services to gRPC deliberately, for the performance, because gRPC is faster and more efficient and the benchmarks are real.Where gRPC Genuinely WonWhere REST Quietly Won Everything ElseGet software Side ’s stories in your inboxThe Cost Nobody Puts in the BenchmarkWhy the Faster Option Was So TemptingThe Real LessonWhere I Put the RestQuestions this post answers
Should I switch my backend services from REST to gRPC for better performance?
Only if service-to-service performance between systems you control is a genuine bottleneck. gRPC's compact binary format is measurably faster and more efficient on the wire and enforces strict contracts between services, but it sacrifices REST's human-readability, universal tooling support, and ease of debugging, logging, and integration, which for most teams costs more time than the performance gains save. daily.dev surfaces real-world tradeoff writeups like this for engineers weighing REST against gRPC.
What are the practical downsides of using gRPC instead of REST in production?
gRPC's binary format cannot be inspected directly, so debugging requires specialized tooling instead of simply curling a request and reading plain text. Ordinary conveniences like easy logging, manual testing, and integrating with tools that assume HTTP become harder, and every integration requires checking whether the other side supports gRPC and finding compatible libraries, unlike REST's universal support. Teams evaluating gRPC's operational costs can track real production experiences on daily.dev.
300.3K Impressions4 Comments