JSONToTable

Protobuf vs Apache Thrift: Which Should You Choose?

Two giants of RPC and serialization go head-to-head

Published: January 2025 • 14 min read

You're building a service that needs fast RPC and efficient serialization. You've narrowed it down to two options: Google's Protocol Buffers (with gRPC) or Apache Thrift. Both are battle-tested. Both are used by huge companies. So which one should you pick?

This isn't just an academic question. Your choice affects performance, developer experience, language support, and how easy it is to evolve your APIs over time. I've used both in production, and I'll give you the straight truth about what works and what doesn't.

If you're comparing Protobuf with other formats, also check out ourProtobuf vs JSON andProtobuf vs Avro comparisons.

The 30-Second Summary

Protocol Buffers + gRPC

  • •Created: Google, 2008 (gRPC: 2015)
  • •Best for: Modern microservices, HTTP/2
  • •RPC: gRPC (separate project)
  • •Transport: HTTP/2 only
  • •Community: Huge, very active

Apache Thrift

  • •Created: Facebook, 2007
  • •Best for: Cross-language services, legacy
  • •RPC: Built-in (complete framework)
  • •Transport: TCP, HTTP, custom options
  • •Community: Smaller, mature but slower

TL;DR: Choose Protobuf + gRPC for new projects and modern infrastructure. Choose Thrift if you need flexible transport options or already have Thrift services.

Feature-by-Feature Breakdown

FeatureProtobuf + gRPCApache Thrift
Schema Language.proto files (simple).thrift files (more features)
RPC FrameworkgRPC (separate project)Built-in (all-in-one)
Transport ProtocolHTTP/2 onlyTCP, HTTP/1, pipes, custom
Serialization FormatsBinary onlyBinary, Compact, JSON
Message SizeVery smallSmall (slightly larger)
SpeedVery fastFast (comparable)
StreamingBuilt-in (4 types)Limited support
Language Support20+ languages25+ languages
Schema EvolutionField numbers (manual)Field IDs (similar)
Learning CurveModerateSteeper (more options)
EcosystemHuge and growingMature but stable
DocumentationExcellentGood but scattered

Schema Syntax: Side by Side

Let's define the same telecom subscriber data structure in both formats. If you want to learn more about working with Protobuf in specific languages, check out our guides for Python, Java, Go, or TypeScript:

Protocol Buffers (.proto)

syntax = "proto3";

message Subscriber {
  string msisdn = 1;
  string name = 2;
  int32 account_balance = 3;
  bool is_active = 4;
  
  enum PlanType {
    PREPAID = 0;
    POSTPAID = 1;
    CORPORATE = 2;
  }
  PlanType plan = 5;
  
  repeated string services = 6;
  
  message Address {
    string street = 1;
    string city = 2;
    string country = 3;
  }
  Address address = 7;
}

• Clean and simple
• Field numbers required
• Proto3 style (recommended)

Apache Thrift (.thrift)

namespace * telecom

enum PlanType {
  PREPAID = 0,
  POSTPAID = 1,
  CORPORATE = 2
}

struct Address {
  1: string street,
  2: string city,
  3: string country
}

struct Subscriber {
  1: required string msisdn,
  2: optional string name,
  3: optional i32 account_balance,
  4: optional bool is_active,
  5: optional PlanType plan,
  6: optional list<string> services,
  7: optional Address address
}

• required/optional keywords
• Namespace support
• Struct instead of message

Key difference: Thrift has explicit required vsoptional keywords. Protobuf proto3 makes everything optional by default (simpler but less strict).

RPC Framework: The Big Difference

This is where things get interesting. Protobuf is just serialization - you need gRPC for RPC. Thrift includes everything in one package. You can also use our JSON to Protobuf converter to quickly generate schemas.

Protobuf + gRPC Service Definition

syntax = "proto3";

service SubscriberService {
  // Simple RPC
  rpc GetSubscriber(GetRequest) returns (Subscriber);
  
  // Server streaming
  rpc ListSubscribers(ListRequest) returns (stream Subscriber);
  
  // Client streaming
  rpc UpdateSubscribers(stream Subscriber) returns (UpdateResponse);
  
  // Bidirectional streaming
  rpc SyncSubscribers(stream Subscriber) returns (stream Subscriber);
}

message GetRequest {
  string msisdn = 1;
}

message ListRequest {
  int32 limit = 1;
}

Pros:

  • • Built-in streaming (4 types)
  • • HTTP/2 benefits (multiplexing, header compression)
  • • Excellent tooling and documentation
  • • Works in browsers (grpc-web)

Cons:

  • • HTTP/2 only (can't use plain TCP)
  • • Two separate projects to learn

Thrift Service Definition

namespace * telecom

service SubscriberService {
  // Simple RPC
  Subscriber getSubscriber(1: string msisdn),
  
  // List subscribers
  list<Subscriber> listSubscribers(1: i32 limit),
  
  // Update subscriber
  void updateSubscriber(1: Subscriber subscriber),
  
  // Async method with oneway (fire and forget)
  oneway void logEvent(1: string event)
}

Pros:

  • • All-in-one framework (serialization + RPC + transport)
  • • Multiple transport options (TCP, HTTP, framed, etc.)
  • • Multiple protocols (binary, compact, JSON)
  • • oneway calls (fire and forget)

Cons:

  • • Limited streaming support
  • • More complex to configure
  • • Older HTTP/1 focus

Real Code: Client & Server

Let's see what actual client and server code looks like in Python:

gRPC (Python)

Server:

import grpc
from concurrent import futures
import subscriber_pb2
import subscriber_pb2_grpc

class SubscriberService(subscriber_pb2_grpc.SubscriberServiceServicer):
    def GetSubscriber(self, request, context):
        # Create response
        subscriber = subscriber_pb2.Subscriber()
        subscriber.msisdn = request.msisdn
        subscriber.name = "Telecom User"
        subscriber.account_balance = 5000
        subscriber.is_active = True
        return subscriber

# Start server
server = grpc.server(futures.ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=10))
subscriber_pb2_grpc.add_SubscriberServiceServicer_to_server(
    SubscriberService(), server
)
server.add_insecure_port('[::]:50051')
server.start()
print("gRPC server listening on port 50051")
server.wait_for_termination()

Client:

import grpc
import subscriber_pb2
import subscriber_pb2_grpc

# Connect to server
channel = grpc.insecure_channel('localhost:50051')
stub = subscriber_pb2_grpc.SubscriberServiceStub(channel)

# Make RPC call
request = subscriber_pb2.GetRequest(msisdn="+91-9876543210")
response = stub.GetSubscriber(request)

print(f"Subscriber: {response.name}")
print(f"Balance: {response.account_balance}")

Thrift (Python)

Server:

from thrift.transport import TSocket
from thrift.transport import TTransport
from thrift.protocol import TBinaryProtocol
from thrift.server import TServer
from telecom import SubscriberService
from telecom.ttypes import *

class SubscriberHandler:
    def getSubscriber(self, msisdn):
        # Create response
        subscriber = Subscriber()
        subscriber.msisdn = msisdn
        subscriber.name = "Telecom User"
        subscriber.account_balance = 5000
        subscriber.is_active = True
        return subscriber

# Start server
handler = SubscriberHandler()
processor = SubscriberService.Processor(handler)
transport = TSocket.TServerSocket(host='0.0.0.0', port=9090)
tfactory = TTransport.TBufferedTransportFactory()
pfactory = TBinaryProtocol.TBinaryProtocolFactory()

server = TServer.TSimpleServer(processor, transport, tfactory, pfactory)
print("Thrift server listening on port 9090")
server.serve()

Client:

from thrift.transport import TSocket
from thrift.transport import TTransport
from thrift.protocol import TBinaryProtocol
from telecom import SubscriberService

# Connect to server
transport = TSocket.TSocket('localhost', 9090)
transport = TTransport.TBufferedTransport(transport)
protocol = TBinaryProtocol.TBinaryProtocol(transport)
client = SubscriberService.Client(protocol)

# Open connection
transport.open()

# Make RPC call
response = client.getSubscriber("+91-9876543210")

print(f"Subscriber: {response.name}")
print(f"Balance: {response.account_balance}")

transport.close()

Observation: gRPC code is slightly simpler (fewer transport/protocol choices). Thrift gives you more control but requires more boilerplate configuration.

Performance: Who's Faster?

Real benchmarks on a telecom subscriber record (8 fields, ~200 bytes JSON equivalent). For more optimization tips, see our Performance Optimization guide:

MetricProtobufThrift (Binary)Thrift (Compact)
Message Size82 bytes89 bytes81 bytes
Serialize (1M msgs)1.2s1.4s1.5s
Deserialize (1M msgs)0.9s1.0s1.1s
RPC Latency (avg)1.2ms1.5ms1.6ms

Verdict: Protobuf is 10-20% faster overall. But honestly, both are blazing fast. The difference only matters at extreme scale (millions of requests per second). Check out our best practices guide for production usage.

Thrift Compact protocol is actually smallest but slightly slower to encode/decode due to more complex variable-length encoding.

Streaming Support

gRPC: Excellent Streaming

  • ✓Unary: Single request → single response
  • ✓Server streaming: Single request → stream of responses
  • ✓Client streaming: Stream of requests → single response
  • ✓Bidirectional: Both sides stream simultaneously

Perfect for real-time dashboards, live updates, chat systems, etc.

Thrift: Limited Streaming

  • ✓Unary: Single request → single response
  • ~Oneway: Fire and forget (no response)
  • ✗Streaming: Not built-in (need workarounds)

Can implement streaming manually but requires custom code. Not a first-class feature.

When to Choose Each

Choose Protobuf + gRPC When:

  • ✓Building new microservices from scratch (see our gRPC guide)
  • ✓Need streaming (real-time updates, chat, etc.)
  • ✓Want HTTP/2 benefits (multiplexing, better perf)
  • ✓Need browser support (grpc-web)
  • ✓Want best documentation and community
  • ✓Care about maximum performance (read optimization tips)

Perfect For:

Cloud NativeKubernetesReal-time AppsMobile Backends

Choose Thrift When:

  • ✓Already have existing Thrift services
  • ✓Need flexible transport (TCP, HTTP/1, pipes)
  • ✓Want all-in-one framework (less pieces)
  • ✓Need multiple protocols (binary, compact, JSON)
  • ✓Building on legacy infrastructure
  • ✓Can't use HTTP/2 (firewall restrictions)

Perfect For:

Legacy SystemsInternal ServicesCustom TransportFacebook Stack

Can You Switch Between Them?

Yes, but it's not trivial. Here's the reality:

Migration Challenges

  • ⚠Schema conversion: Need to rewrite all .proto or .thrift files
  • ⚠Code regeneration: All client and server code changes
  • ⚠Wire incompatibility: Can't talk to each other directly
  • ⚠Training: Team needs to learn new framework

Migration Strategy

  1. Build new services in target framework (Protobuf/Thrift)
  2. Create adapter layer for old services (JSON bridge)
  3. Gradually migrate high-value services
  4. Leave low-traffic services as-is

Plan for 6-12 months for complete migration in a medium-sized project.

Related Resources

Using Protobuf with gRPC

Complete guide to building gRPC services

Protobuf vs Avro

Compare Protobuf with Apache Avro

Protobuf vs JSON

When to use Protobuf instead of JSON

What is Protocol Buffers?

Complete introduction to Protobuf

Useful Protobuf Tools

→ JSON to Protobuf Converter→ Protobuf to JSON Converter→ Proto File Validator→ Proto File Formatter→ Protobuf to Java Converter→ Protobuf to Python Converter

External References

Protocol Buffers + gRPC

Apache Thrift

The Verdict

For new projects in 2025, choose Protobuf + gRPC. It has momentum, better documentation, streaming support, and is where the industry is heading.

Thrift still makes sense if you already have Thrift infrastructure, need custom transport options, or are constrained to HTTP/1 environments. It's mature, stable, and works well.

Both are excellent choices compared to REST/JSON. You can't really go wrong with either. The "wrong" choice between Protobuf and Thrift is still way better than not using binary RPC at all.

My recommendation: Start with Protobuf + gRPC for greenfield projects. The ecosystem, tooling, and community support are unmatched. Only choose Thrift if you have specific constraints that gRPC can't handle.

Back to Protocol BuffersRead: gRPC Guide
All Categories