GraphQL vs REST: choosing the right API for your project

translated_content

Choosing between GraphQL and REST for developing an API is a decisive step in the design of a modern software project. These two architectures for communication between applications are now essential in web development. While REST relies on a classic approach based on resources accessible via HTTP verbs, GraphQL innovates by offering a more flexible and efficient method of querying data through a single endpoint. The rapid evolution of technologies, as well as the rise of mobile applications and rich interfaces, makes this choice strategic, as it influences not only API performance but also project maintenance and flexibility.

In a context where data needs are becoming more complex, where optimizing network traffic is critical, and where front-end teams demand more autonomy, understanding the fundamental differences between GraphQL and REST proves essential. While REST continues to benefit from its maturity, GraphQL stands out with its declarative query language and centralized schema which revolutionize the way data is queried and transmitted. Each solution has its advantages and limitations, whether in terms of performance, version governance, or developer experience.

The debate between GraphQL and REST is therefore based on various criteria: nature of the project, business complexity, network constraints, or scalability. An informed choice will impact not only the scalability and reliability of the API but also the productivity of teams and the quality of the code. Exploring these two models in detail will better guide design decisions for optimal API architectures in 2025 and beyond.

In brief:

• REST is a mature architecture based on resources with multiple endpoints, ideal for stable services that are compatible with HTTP caching mechanisms.
• GraphQL centralizes exchanges through a single endpoint and a query language that allows precise requests for necessary data, improving performance and flexibility.
• The API choice should be based on the nature of the project, scalability needs, complexity of business entities, and network constraints.
• REST favors explicit versioning while GraphQL relies on an evolving schema with gradual deprecation of fields.
• Web development benefits from GraphQL’s flexibility for rich interfaces, while REST ensures simple integration with a large ecosystem of tools and standards.

Understanding the fundamentals of REST and GraphQL APIs: principles and architectures

In the landscape of API architectures, REST (Representational State Transfer) and GraphQL stand out for their respective approaches to managing and exchanging data. REST is designed around the principle of resources identified by URLs, each exposing a business entity accessible via standard HTTP verbs: GET for reading, POST for creating, PUT for updating, and DELETE for deleting. This model facilitates clear structuring of endpoints, each resource having a dedicated path.

A REST API naturally allows reliance on established and robust mechanisms such as HTTP caching, explicit version management via URLs, and the use of HTTP status codes to ensure precise communication about the results of calls. For example, a GET /posts endpoint returns the complete list of publications, sending a structured and complete JSON object according to the server-side definition.

GraphQL, born from growing needs for flexibility, adopts a different philosophy. It centralizes all queries through a single endpoint, such as /graphql, and uses a declarative query language that allows the client to specify exactly the fields and relationships it needs, thus reducing the volume of data transferred. This approach relies on a server-side schema written in schema definition language (SDL) that describes types, fields, and possible operations, varying between queries to retrieve data, mutations to modify it, and subscriptions to receive real-time updates.

A key aspect of GraphQL is the reduction of the multiple back-and-forth requests typically found in REST, thus limiting network overhead, a significant advantage for mobile applications or those with dynamic UIs. Internally, all GraphQL queries are transmitted via HTTP POST, which centralizes access management and validation at a single entry point of the server.

To illustrate the difference, REST will always return the complete structure of resources, even sending unnecessary data, while GraphQL only returns what has been specified, optimizing responsiveness and bandwidth. This architectural choice has direct consequences on the maintenance and evolution of APIs, as well as on the developer experience, a key criterion in modern projects.

Version management and scalability: how do REST and GraphQL adapt to changes?

The constant evolution of software projects requires rigorous version management and API compatibility. Poor governance can lead to errors, increased technical debt, or even service interruptions. REST and GraphQL adopt fundamentally distinct strategies here, each with its advantages and limitations.

In the REST universe, version management is often carried out via explicit URL segments, such as /api/v1/resource, /api/v2/resource, allowing major changes to be deployed without breaking older clients. This method ensures clarity for development teams and facilitates caching and monitoring. However, it can lead to a proliferation of endpoints to maintain, increasing operational complexity and deployment cycles.

GraphQL favors an implicit versioning model. The server-side schema remains stable and backward compatible: obsolete fields are marked as deprecated and remain accessible with warning messages. This mechanism offers the advantage of not multiplying versions, making maintenance easier. However, if an organization does not manage its schema properly, it risks accumulating heavy technical debt with unused deprecated fields, making navigation through the schema difficult and slowing down evolutions.

A concrete example is a financial company that kept an explicitly versioned REST base for certain critical services ensuring strict regulatory compliance, while gradually introducing GraphQL for more dynamic front-end interfaces. This hybrid strategy leverages the stability of REST and the flexibility of GraphQL.

The governance of the GraphQL schema also requires regular reviews and automation tools to detect deprecations and ensure a clear API contract for developers. REST versioning, on the other hand, requires increased coordination to deploy and document each version coherently.

Performance and efficiency in data exchanges: advantages and limitations of GraphQL and REST

The performance of an API is useful for measuring latency, bandwidth consumed, and scalability of services. The choice between REST and GraphQL directly influences these parameters depending on the nature and use of the application.

REST, with its multiple dedicated endpoints, fully exploits HTTP caching mechanisms. These caches, present at the browser, proxy, or CDN level, significantly limit server calls on static or infrequently modified resources. The granularity of URLs facilitates this process, increasing response speed for repetitive data. However, in some cases, recovering a complex object may require multiple REST calls, exposing the system to the classic “n+1 query” problem.

GraphQL optimizes data querying by reducing back-and-forth requests. Clients formulate precise queries that group relationships and sub-resources, thus avoiding multiple chained requests and reducing perceived latency, especially on mobile or remote networks. For example, a mobile application displaying a list of products with their categories and customer reviews would benefit from a single GraphQL query instead of several REST calls.

However, this densification of data in a single response can initially burden server processing and complicate client-side cache management. Solutions such as pagination, throttling mechanisms, and field-level caching are essential to prevent network overload or to operate efficiently on resource-limited devices.

The table below summarizes the key differences in terms of performance:

Criterion	REST API	GraphQL
Entry point	Multiple dedicated endpoints	Single endpoint (/graphql)
Cache mechanisms	Effective native HTTP cache	Field-level cache requires configuration
Data transfer	Complete resource structure	Precise and targeted request
Latency management	Can suffer from n+1 issue	Reduces back-and-forth requests
Server load	Less intense per simple request	Heavier per complete request

Developer experience and front-back integration: autonomy and tools for choosing your API architecture

The adoption of an API largely depends on the developer experience, clarity of contracts, and ease of integration between front-end and back-end teams. REST benefits from a long history and a mature ecosystem with tools like Swagger/OpenAPI for documenting APIs, Postman for testing, and a large community. These assets reduce the learning curve and facilitate collaboration on standard projects.

GraphQL evolves this paradigm by making the front-end more autonomous through its strong typing system and schema introspection. Front-end developers can precisely define their data needs, adjust queries without waiting for back-end updates, and leverage specialized IDEs like GraphiQL or Apollo Playground to test and optimize their queries. This flexibility speeds up development cycles on complex UIs but requires targeted skill enhancement, particularly regarding schema structuring and resolver management.

This autonomy has direct impacts on team productivity, reducing back-and-forths between back and front, and allowing for more frequent and tailored deliveries. However, REST remains very effective for less changing interfaces, where stable and well-documented endpoints are sufficient to meet needs.

A key factor also lies in governance. GraphQL requires rigorous schema management to avoid uncontrolled growth that would hinder evolutions. REST, being more rigid, imposes a slower but safer pace of endpoint evolution.

Here is a summarized list of advantages and constraints to consider when making your API choice:

• REST: simplicity, mature ecosystem, native caching, clear versioning, low learning curve.
• GraphQL: flexibility in querying, front-end autonomy, lower volume of transferred data, necessary skill development.
• Maintenance and scalability are adapted according to project size and frequency of evolution.
• Performance adjusted according to network constraints, especially for mobile applications.
• Need for strict governance to avoid technical debt, especially with GraphQL.

/* Script for interactive GraphQL vs REST comparison table – Dynamically loads table data – Handles keyboard/mouse interactions for accessibility – Displays a detailed description of the selected criterion */ // Data in English, easily modifiable here: const comparisonData = [ { “Criterion”: “Type of request”, “REST”: “HTTP verbs (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE)”, “GraphQL”: “Query, Mutation, Subscription”, “Description”: “REST uses standard HTTP verbs to define the action being performed, while GraphQL employs specific operations: Query for reading, Mutation for modifying, and Subscription for real-time updates.” }, { “Criterion”: “Entry point”, “REST”: “Multiple endpoints”, “GraphQL”: “Single endpoint”, “Description”: “REST relies on multiple URLs for each resource, whereas GraphQL uses a single entry point for all requests, simplifying management.” }, { “Criterion”: “Return structure”, “REST”: “Complete structure defined by server”, “GraphQL”: “Data specified by client”, “Description”: “With REST, the server decides the structure of returned data, while GraphQL allows the client to precisely define the desired fields and types, thus avoiding over- or under-fetching.” }, { “Criterion”: “Version management”, “REST”: “URL versioning”, “GraphQL”: “Field deprecation in schema”, “Description”: “REST manages versions via separate URLs, while GraphQL promotes gradual deprecation of fields directly in the schema, making transitions smoother.” }, { “Criterion”: “Network performance”, “REST”: “Multiple possible requests”, “GraphQL”: “Optimized single request”, “Description”: “REST may require multiple network calls to retrieve related data, while GraphQL optimizes performance with a single request that aggregates all necessary data.” } ]; // Reference to the tbody of the table const tbody = document.getElementById(‘comparatif-corps’); // Element to display the description const descriptionEl = document.getElementById(‘description’); const messageSelection = document.getElementById(‘message-selection’); /** * Creates and adds rows to the table from the data */ function loadTable() { comparisonData.forEach((item, index) => { const tr = document.createElement(‘tr’); // Make each row focusable for keyboard accessibility tr.tabIndex = 0; tr.setAttribute(‘role’, ‘row’); tr.className = ‘cursor-pointer hover:bg-gray-100 focus:bg-blue-100’; // Criterion const tdCriterion = document.createElement(‘td’); tdCriterion.textContent = item[‘Criterion’]; tdCriterion.className = “border border-gray-300 px-4 py-2 font-medium”; tdCriterion.setAttribute(‘role’,’cell’); // REST const tdRest = document.createElement(‘td’); tdRest.textContent = item[‘REST’]; tdRest.className = “border border-gray-300 px-4 py-2”; tdRest.setAttribute(‘role’,’cell’); // GraphQL const tdGraphql = document.createElement(‘td’); tdGraphql.textContent = item[‘GraphQL’]; tdGraphql.className = “border border-gray-300 px-4 py-2”; tdGraphql.setAttribute(‘role’,’cell’); tr.append(tdCriterion, tdRest, tdGraphql); // Handle click and enter/SPACE key for interaction tr.addEventListener(‘click’, () => displayDescription(index)); tr.addEventListener(‘keydown’, (e) => { if (e.key === ‘Enter’ || e.key === ‘ ‘) { e.preventDefault(); displayDescription(index); } }); tbody.appendChild(tr); }); } /** * Displays a detailed description of a criterion in the dedicated section * @param {number} index – index in comparisonData */ function displayDescription(index) { const item = comparisonData[index]; if (!item) return; messageSelection.style.display = ‘none’; descriptionEl.innerHTML = `

${item.Criterion}

REST : ${item.REST}

GraphQL : ${item.GraphQL}

${item.Description}

`; descriptionEl.focus(); } // Initialization on script load loadTable(); {“@context”:”https://schema.org”,”@type”:”FAQPage”,”mainEntity”:[{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What major differences between REST and GraphQL affect their performance?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”REST uses multiple endpoints and benefits from native HTTP caching, while GraphQL reduces back-and-forths with a single endpoint and precise queries, which limits the volume of data transferred and improves latency.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”How does GraphQL handle API evolution without explicit versioning?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”GraphQL relies on an evolving schema where fields can be progressively deprecated, a mechanism that helps avoid the multiplication of versions while maintaining backward compatibility.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”Is REST still relevant for modern projects?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Yes, REST remains relevant, especially for stable services that leverage mature caching, rapid integration, and a very rich ecosystem. It is particularly suitable for simple or well-documented APIs.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”What are the challenges related to maintaining GraphQL?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”Maintaining GraphQL requires strict governance of the schema to avoid the accumulation of unnecessary deprecated fields, which complicates navigation and increases the risk of technical debt.”}},{“@type”:”Question”,”name”:”How to choose the right API for a software project?”,”acceptedAnswer”:{“@type”:”Answer”,”text”:”The choice depends on business complexity, frequency of data evolution, network constraints, and the need for autonomy of front-end teams. REST is often preferred for stable services, while GraphQL is suited for rich and evolving interfaces.”}}]}

What major differences between REST and GraphQL affect their performance?

REST uses multiple endpoints and benefits from native HTTP caching, while GraphQL reduces back-and-forths with a single endpoint and precise queries, which limits the volume of data transferred and improves latency.

How does GraphQL handle API evolution without explicit versioning?

GraphQL relies on an evolving schema where fields can be progressively deprecated, a mechanism that helps avoid the multiplication of versions while maintaining backward compatibility.

Is REST still relevant for modern projects?

Yes, REST remains relevant, especially for stable services that leverage mature caching, rapid integration, and a very rich ecosystem. It is particularly suitable for simple or well-documented APIs.

What are the challenges related to maintaining GraphQL?

Maintaining GraphQL requires strict governance of the schema to avoid the accumulation of unnecessary deprecated fields, which complicates navigation and increases the risk of technical debt.

How to choose the right API for a software project?

The choice depends on business complexity, frequency of data evolution, network constraints, and the need for autonomy of front-end teams. REST is often preferred for stable services, while GraphQL is suited for rich and evolving interfaces.