REST vs GraphQL: Which API Paradigm?
REST exposes fixed resource endpoints with HTTP semantics; GraphQL exposes one endpoint where clients request exactly the fields they need.
REST maps resources to URLs and leans on HTTP caching, status codes, and simplicity, but can over- or under-fetch for complex clients. GraphQL lets clients specify precise queries against a typed schema, reducing round trips and over-fetching, at the cost of more server complexity and trickier caching. REST favors simplicity and HTTP-native caching; GraphQL favors flexible client-driven data fetching.
| REST | GraphQL | |
|---|---|---|
| Endpoints | Many resources | One endpoint |
| Fetching | Fixed shapes | Client-specified |
| Caching | HTTP-native | Custom / persisted |
| Schema | OpenAPI (optional) | Built-in, typed |
| Best for | Simple/cacheable APIs | Complex, varied clients |
Use case and tradeoffs
REST suits CRUD-style APIs, public endpoints, and anything that benefits from HTTP caching and simplicity. GraphQL suits rich clients (mobile, dashboards) that need flexible, aggregated data without many round trips, accepting complexity in resolvers, caching, and query-cost control.
In CI
REST pipelines validate OpenAPI and run contract tests. GraphQL pipelines check the schema, run codegen for typed clients, and guard against breaking schema changes. Both run on managed runners, where faster runners shorten codegen and schema-check steps.
The verdict
Simple, cacheable, resource-oriented APIs: REST. Complex clients needing flexible, precise data fetching from many sources: GraphQL. Many teams keep REST for public/simple APIs and adopt GraphQL where client data needs are varied and aggregation-heavy.