Comparing Avro vs Protobuf for Data Serialization

by Dan Silber Dan Silber

Comparing Avro vs Protobuf for Data Serialization

Data serialization is a crucial aspect of modern distributed systems because it enables the efficient communication and storage of structured data. In this article, we will discuss two popular serialization formats: Avro and Protocol Buffers, Protobuf for short, and compare their strengths and weaknesses to help you make an informed decision about which one to use in your projects.

What Is Data Serialization, and Why Do You Need It?

Serialization is the process of converting structured data, such as objects or records, into a format that can be transmitted over the network or stored on disk. This process is essential for enabling communication between distributed systems or microservices, for building efficient event-driven systems, and for persisting data in databases or file systems.

What is Avro?

Avro is a serialization framework developed by the Apache Software Foundation. It is designed to be language-independent and schema-based, which means that data is serialized and deserialized using a schema that describes the structure of the data. Avro schemas are defined in JSON.

What is Protobuf?

Protobuf is a serialization format developed by Google. Like Avro, Protobuf is also schema-based and language-independent. However, unlike Avro, Protobuf relies on static typing and code generation to serialize and deserialize data. That means you need to compile your schema into language-specific classes or libraries with the protoc compiler before you can use it in your application.

Avro vs. Protobuf: Strengths and Weaknesses

Both Avro and Protobuf have strengths and weaknesses, which make them suitable for different use cases. Let’s take a look at the differences in more detail, so you can make an informed decision about which is right for your use case:

Avro Strengths

  • Dynamic typing: Unlike Protobuf, Avro does not require code generation, which enables more flexibility and easier integration with dynamic languages like Python or Ruby.
  • Self-describing messages: Serialized data in Avro includes embedded schema information, making it possible to decode the data even if the reader does not have access to the original schema.

Avro Weaknesses

  • Verbosity of schema definition: Avro schemas are defined in JSON, which can be more verbose than Protobuf’s .proto format.
  • Slower serialization/deserialization performance: Due to its dynamic typing nature and inclusion of embedded schema information, Avro can have slower serialization and deserialization speeds compared to Protobuf.
  • Limited support for some languages: While Avro supports multiple programming languages, the level of support or maturity for some languages might not be as polished as others (e.g., Java has better support than Python).

Protobuf Strengths

  • High performance with a small payload size: Protobuf is designed for fast serialization and deserialization, as well as compact binary representation of data. This makes it suitable for high-throughput applications like RPCs (Remote Procedure Calls) or real-time streaming systems.
  • Static typing with code generation: Protobuf requires pre-defined message structures compiled into language-specific classes or libraries, which can result in better type safety and performance compared to Avro’s dynamic typing.
  • Cross-platform compatibility: Protobuf supports multiple programming languages and platforms, making it an ideal choice for applications with diverse technology stacks.

Protobuf Weaknesses

  • Code generation: Protobuf requires an extra step in the development workflow, as you need to recompile the corresponding language-specific classes/libraries whenever the message structure changes.
  • Less human-readable wire format: Serialized data in Protobuf is purely binary, making it harder to inspect or debug compared to Avro.

When choosing between Avro and Protobuf for data serialization, consider factors such as the typing system, performance, and language support. Avro might be a better fit for applications that require flexibility and human-readability of the schema, whereas Protobuf is the better choice for applications that prioritize performance, type safety, and cross-platform compatibility.

Regardless of the encodings used with streaming or event-driven data, being able to observe, monitor, and act on data is paramount for compliance, reliability, and shipping complex features faster.

Want to nerd out with me and other misfits about your experiences with monorepos, deep-tech, or anything engineering-related?

Join our Discord, we’d love to have you!