REST vs GraphQL: Is It Really a War?

Introduction

In recent years, REST and GraphQL are often described as if they were competing technologies, locked in some kind of “API war.” The reality is a lot less dramatic. REST, defined by Roy Fielding back in 2000, quickly became the dominant architectural style for APIs on the web. GraphQL, created by Facebook in 2012 and open-sourced in 2015, came later as a solution to some practical limitations of REST.

So rather than rivals, it’s more accurate to see them as two different tools in the developer’s toolbox.

Core Concepts

REST (Representational State Transfer) is an architectural style that uses HTTP methods (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE…) to manage resources. Each resource is accessible through a URL, the communication is stateless (the server doesn’t keep track of previous interactions), and data is often exchanged in JSON. REST’s main strengths are its simplicity, the ability to leverage caching, and broad support across languages and frameworks.

GraphQL, on the other hand, is a query language for APIs. Instead of multiple endpoints for different kinds of data, you have a single endpoint where the client specifies exactly which data it needs—no more, no less. Everything is structured around a typed schema and “resolvers” that fetch the requested data. This approach helps avoid two common issues with REST: over-fetching (receiving more data than needed) and under-fetching (making multiple calls to piece everything together).

Key Differences

One of the clearest distinctions is in data fetching. With REST, getting complex or related data often requires multiple calls. With GraphQL, a single query can return all the data you need—even nested structures. For example:

```graphql query { user(id: 123) { name posts { title } } } ````

This query returns just the user’s name and the titles of their posts—nothing extra.

In terms of flexibility and control, GraphQL gives more power to the client (the frontend shapes the response), while REST gives more control to the server (the response is defined per endpoint).

When it comes to versioning, REST typically uses explicit versions in the URL (like /api/v1). GraphQL doesn’t rely on versioning—its schema evolves by adding new fields and deprecating old ones.

Finally, the performance trade-offs: REST integrates well with existing HTTP caching and CDNs, while GraphQL reduces the number of round-trips but can add processing complexity on the server side.

Ecosystem and Tooling

REST has a very mature ecosystem, supported by tools like Swagger/OpenAPI, cURL, Postman, and countless libraries. GraphQL, though younger, comes with powerful tools of its own, such as GraphiQL, Apollo, and schema introspection, which lets you explore the API structure dynamically. Both ecosystems are strong, but their approaches differ.

When to Use Each

There’s no single right answer—it depends on your project.

REST is a great choice for simple CRUD APIs, for applications where caching is critical, or when you need maximum compatibility across different clients. It also works well for quick prototyping, thanks to its straightforward design.

GraphQL shines when data is complex and nested, when multiple clients (like web and mobile apps) need different views of the same data, or when you want to minimize network requests. It’s also the better option for advanced scenarios like real-time subscriptions.

Clearing Up Misconceptions

There are a few myths worth addressing.

• “GraphQL is always better than REST.” Not true—sometimes REST is simpler and more efficient.
• “REST is outdated.” REST is still the most widely used style and continues to evolve.
• “You must choose one or the other.” False. Hybrid architectures that combine both are common and often practical.

Conclusion

There’s no real “API war.” REST and GraphQL are simply different approaches, each with its own trade-offs. REST is stable, simple, and caching-friendly. GraphQL offers flexibility, minimizes over-fetching, and empowers frontend developers.

The key is not to follow hype, but to evaluate the actual needs of your project. And in many cases, the smartest choice isn’t picking one over the other—but using both where they make the most sense.