The "GraphQL vs REST" debate is over — not because one won, but because developers realized they solve different problems. In 2026, the question is not which is better, but which is right for your specific situation.

Understanding when to use REST, GraphQL, tRPC, or gRPC can save months of refactoring.

API Design - GraphQL vs REST vs tRPC Modern API design is about choosing the right tool for the job

The Modern API Landscape

Protocol Best For Type Safety Learning Curve
REST Public APIs, simple CRUD Manual (OpenAPI) Low
GraphQL Complex frontends, multiple clients Schema-based Medium
tRPC Full-stack TypeScript apps End-to-end Low
gRPC Microservices, high performance Protobuf High

Each has found its niche. Let's understand why.

REST: The Proven Standard

REST remains the default for public APIs and simple applications.

When REST Wins

1. Public APIs

REST is universally understood. Any developer can call your API without learning new tools:

curl https://api.example.com/users/123

No GraphQL clients, no code generation, no special tooling required.

2. Simple CRUD Operations

For straightforward create-read-update-delete operations, REST's simplicity is a feature:

GET    /users          # List users
POST   /users          # Create user
GET    /users/:id      # Get user
PUT    /users/:id      # Update user
DELETE /users/:id      # Delete user

No query language needed. HTTP verbs express intent clearly.

3. Caching

REST works naturally with HTTP caching:

GET /users/123
Cache-Control: max-age=3600

# CDNs, browsers, and proxies understand this

GraphQL POST requests are harder to cache at the HTTP layer.

Modern REST Best Practices

REST in 2026 often includes:

# OpenAPI specification for type generation
openapi: 3.1.0
paths:
  /users/{id}:
    get:
      responses:
        200:
          content:
            application/json:
              schema:
                $ref: '#/components/schemas/User'

Tools like openapi-typescript generate types from OpenAPI specs, bringing type safety to REST.

GraphQL: Complex Frontend Needs

GraphQL excels when frontends have complex, varying data requirements.

When GraphQL Wins

1. Multiple Clients with Different Needs

Mobile app needs minimal data. Web app needs everything. Admin panel needs even more:

# Mobile: minimal data
query {
  user(id: 123) {
    name
    avatarUrl
  }
}

# Web: more data
query {
  user(id: 123) {
    name
    email
    avatarUrl
    posts(limit: 10) {
      title
      excerpt
    }
  }
}

# Admin: everything
query {
  user(id: 123) {
    name
    email
    avatarUrl
    createdAt
    lastLogin
    posts { ... }
    comments { ... }
    activityLog { ... }
  }
}

One endpoint serves all clients. No backend changes needed for new frontend requirements.

2. Complex, Nested Data

When you need to fetch related data in one request:

query OrderDetails {
  order(id: "abc") {
    status
    customer {
      name
      email
    }
    items {
      product {
        name
        price
        inventory {
          available
        }
      }
      quantity
    }
    shipping {
      carrier
      trackingNumber
      estimatedDelivery
    }
  }
}

REST would require multiple requests or custom endpoints.

3. Rapid Frontend Iteration

Frontend teams can iterate without waiting for backend changes. If the schema supports it, frontends can request it.

GraphQL Challenges

GraphQL has real costs:

  • Complexity: Requires more tooling, client libraries, and server setup
  • N+1 queries: Without DataLoader, nested queries can be inefficient
  • Caching: Harder to cache at HTTP layer
  • Security: Query complexity attacks, depth limiting required
  • Versioning: Schema evolution requires careful planning

tRPC: Full-Stack TypeScript

tRPC has emerged as the preferred choice for full-stack TypeScript applications.

When tRPC Wins

1. Same Team, Same Language

When frontend and backend are TypeScript:

// Server: define router
const appRouter = router({
  user: router({
    get: procedure
      .input(z.object({ id: z.string() }))
      .query(async ({ input }) => {
        return await db.user.findUnique({ where: { id: input.id } })
      }),

    create: procedure
      .input(z.object({
        name: z.string(),
        email: z.string().email()
      }))
      .mutation(async ({ input }) => {
        return await db.user.create({ data: input })
      })
  })
})

// Client: fully typed, no code generation
const user = await trpc.user.get.query({ id: '123' })
// user is fully typed based on server return type

No OpenAPI specs. No GraphQL schemas. No code generation. Types flow automatically from server to client.

2. Rapid Development

Change the server, and TypeScript immediately shows what breaks on the client:

// Server change: add required field
.input(z.object({
  name: z.string(),
  email: z.string().email(),
  role: z.enum(['admin', 'user'])  // New required field
}))

// Client: TypeScript error immediately
trpc.user.create.mutate({ name: 'John', email: 'john@example.com' })
// Error: Property 'role' is missing

3. Monorepo Applications

tRPC shines in monorepos where server and client share a codebase:

apps/
├── web/          # Next.js frontend
├── api/          # tRPC server
└── mobile/       # React Native (also uses tRPC)
packages/
└── trpc/         # Shared router types

tRPC Limitations

tRPC is not suitable for:

  • Public APIs (requires TypeScript client)
  • Multi-language backends
  • Teams that prefer REST conventions
  • APIs consumed by external parties

gRPC: High-Performance Microservices

gRPC dominates internal microservice communication.

When gRPC Wins

1. Service-to-Service Communication

When services communicate at high volume:

// user.proto
service UserService {
  rpc GetUser(GetUserRequest) returns (User);
  rpc ListUsers(ListUsersRequest) returns (stream User);
  rpc CreateUser(CreateUserRequest) returns (User);
}

message User {
  string id = 1;
  string name = 2;
  string email = 3;
}

Binary protocol, HTTP/2 streaming, automatic code generation for any language.

2. Performance-Critical Paths

gRPC's binary serialization is faster than JSON:

Serialization Benchmark (10K messages)
├── gRPC (Protobuf): 12ms
├── JSON: 45ms
└── GraphQL: 52ms

For high-throughput services, this adds up.

3. Polyglot Microservices

gRPC generates clients for Go, Java, Python, Rust, and more from the same .proto definition.

gRPC Challenges

  • Browser support: Requires gRPC-Web proxy
  • Debugging: Binary protocol is harder to inspect than JSON
  • Tooling: Requires protobuf compiler and plugins
  • Learning curve: Protocol buffers are another thing to learn

Decision Framework

For Public APIs

Use REST.

Public APIs prioritize accessibility. Any developer with curl should be able to call your API.

For Internal Web Applications

Consider your team:

Situation Recommendation
Full-stack TypeScript team tRPC
Separate frontend/backend teams GraphQL or REST
Complex, varying data needs GraphQL
Simple CRUD operations REST

For Microservices

Use gRPC for service-to-service. REST or GraphQL for edge services that face clients.

For Mobile Applications

GraphQL often wins. Mobile apps benefit from:

  • Fetching exactly what they need (battery/bandwidth)
  • Single requests for complex screens
  • Offline support with Apollo/Relay caching

Hybrid Architectures

Most production systems use multiple protocols:

Modern API Architecture
├── Public API: REST (OpenAPI)
│   └── External developers, partners
│
├── Web/Mobile BFF: GraphQL or tRPC
│   └── Internal frontends
│
├── Internal Services: gRPC
│   └── Service-to-service communication
│
└── Real-time: WebSockets or SSE
    └── Live updates, notifications

The key insight: different parts of your system have different needs. Match the protocol to the requirement.

The Pragmatic Choice

Stop asking "which is best?" Start asking:

  1. Who consumes this API?
  2. What are their data requirements?
  3. What is our team's expertise?
  4. How will requirements evolve?

The answer often becomes obvious. And remember: a working API with the "wrong" choice beats a perfect API that never ships.

Comments