GraphQL vs. REST

GraphQL:

• GraphQL allows clients to request exactly the data they need and no more, reducing over-fetching and under-fetching.
• Clients can fetch nested data and related resources in a single query, reducing the need for multiple requests.
• This fine-grained control over data retrieval is well-suited for scenarios with dynamic data requirements.

REST:

• In REST, endpoints typically return fixed data structures, which can lead to over-fetching (retrieving more data than needed) or under-fetching (not retrieving enough data).
• To fetch related resources, clients often need to make additional requests to multiple endpoints, resulting in potential over-fetching and inefficient data retrieval.

GraphQL:

• GraphQL is highly flexible, allowing clients to shape the response according to their specific requirements.
• Clients can add or remove fields, change nesting levels, and even modify queries at runtime, providing adaptability for frontend development.

REST:

• REST endpoints expose a fixed structure, and changes require versioning or the creation of new endpoints.
• Clients are limited to the data structure and relationships predefined by the server, which can lead to rigid and less adaptable APIs.

GraphQL:

• GraphQL's precise data retrieval reduces unnecessary data transfer, making it efficient in terms of network usage.
• Clients can batch multiple queries into a single request, reducing the overhead of making numerous network requests.

REST:

• REST endpoints return fixed data, and clients must often deal with over-fetching and under-fetching, resulting in less efficient data transfer.
• While HTTP caching mechanisms can be used with REST, they are not as intrinsic as in some GraphQL implementations.

GraphQL:

• GraphQL schemas serve as self-documentation, allowing developers to introspect and discover available types, fields, and operations.
• This self-documenting feature reduces the need for extensive external documentation.

REST:

• REST APIs often require separate documentation to explain the available endpoints, their parameters, and response structures.
• Maintaining and keeping this external documentation up-to-date can be a challenge.

GraphQL:

• GraphQL's query language is more explicit and intuitive for clients. Developers can request data precisely as needed.
• Frontend developers have greater autonomy and can work more independently of backend changes.

REST:

• REST is simpler to understand and implement, especially for straightforward use cases.
• However, clients may need to make multiple requests and handle complex endpoint structures.

GraphQL:

• GraphQL does not natively support HTTP caching mechanisms like ETag or Last-Modified headers.
• Implementing custom caching strategies may be necessary.

REST:

• REST benefits from built-in HTTP caching mechanisms, making it easier to cache responses and improve performance.

GraphQL:

• GraphQL schemas can evolve without breaking existing clients, reducing the need for frequent API versioning.
• Deprecated fields can be marked as such, giving clients time to adapt.

REST:

• REST APIs may require versioning when changes are made to existing endpoints, which can lead to multiple versions and complexity.