gRPC vs GraphQL: Comparison

Modern digital businesses live and die by how efficiently their systems talk to each other. As organizations scale cloud native applications, microservices, and data driven products, the choice of API technology has become a strategic decision rather than a purely engineering one. This is why the debate between gRPC and GraphQL has moved into boardroom conversations alongside topics such as platform resilience, developer velocity, and security posture.

Industry data underscores the urgency. Postman reports that APIs are now central to over 90% of modern applications, and the average enterprise manages hundreds, often thousands, of internal and external APIs. At the same time, Stack Overflow surveys show sustained growth in GraphQL adoption year over year, while gRPC usage continues to rise sharply in high performance backend systems and cloud native infrastructures. These trends highlight not experimentation, but long term architectural shifts across industries including fintech, SaaS, healthcare, and ecommerce.

From a business perspective, the pain points are clear. Legacy REST based integrations struggle with over fetching data, under fetching critical information, and increasing latency as systems scale. This directly impacts application performance, customer experience, and infrastructure costs. Leaders are also facing pressure to ship features faster without expanding engineering headcount, while maintaining strong governance, observability, and security controls. These pressures have driven interest in alternatives and sparked deeper evaluations of GraphQL over gRPC, advantages of gRPC over REST, and how each approach aligns with business goals.

Performance and efficiency are no longer abstract technical metrics. According to multiple industry analyses, inefficient APIs contribute to higher cloud spend, slower release cycles, and increased operational risk. This is where discussions around GraphQL vs gRPC performance matter to executives, even if they never read a line of protocol documentation. 

The underlying question is simple. 

Which technology better supports scalable growth, predictable costs, and long term platform stability?

What is gRPC?

gRPC is an open source communication framework initially developed by Google to support high speed, reliable interactions between distributed systems. At its core, gRPC follows the Remote Procedure Call model, allowing one service to invoke methods on another service as though they were local function calls. This abstraction reduces complexity for engineering teams and creates more predictable service to service interactions across large scale environments.

A key differentiator in the graphql vs grpc discussion is how gRPC handles data exchange and transport. Instead of relying on JSON over HTTP/1.1 like traditional REST APIs, gRPC uses Protocol Buffers for message serialization and HTTP/2 as its underlying transport. Protocol Buffers are compact and strongly typed, resulting in significantly smaller payloads and faster parsing. HTTP/2 adds support for multiplexed connections, header compression, and persistent streams, all of which contribute to lower latency and more efficient network usage.

These technical characteristics translate directly into business value. When organizations evaluate the advantages of gRPC over REST, performance and reliability are usually at the top of the list. gRPC enables bi directional streaming, server side streaming, and client side streaming, making it well suited for real time data exchange and high throughput workloads. Strong contracts enforced through Protobuf schemas also reduce integration errors, improve backward compatibility, and support clearer ownership across teams.

In practice, gRPC is most commonly adopted for internal APIs within microservices architectures, where performance, consistency, and scalability are critical. For organizations operating at scale, gRPC provides a foundation for building resilient platforms that can support growth without introducing excessive latency or operational overhead, setting an essential baseline for comparisons with alternatives such as GraphQL.

How does gRPC API Testing work?

gRPC API testing focuses on validating that service to service communication behaves correctly, securely, and efficiently under real world conditions. Because gRPC uses strongly typed contracts, binary serialization, and HTTP/2, testing looks different from traditional REST API testing. Instead of validating loosely structured JSON payloads, gRPC testing centers on contract accuracy, performance, error handling, and security across tightly coupled services.

At a high level, gRPC API testing ensures that one service can safely and reliably call another as defined by the shared contract, without introducing latency, breaking changes, or hidden vulnerabilities. This is especially important in microservices environments, where a single failure or misconfiguration can cascade across multiple systems.

Here is how gRPC API testing typically works, step by step.

1. Contract Validation Using Protocol Buffers

Testing begins with the Protobuf contract itself. The .proto file defines all services, methods, request messages, and response messages. gRPC testing tools validate that both client and server adhere strictly to this contract.

From a business and risk perspective, this reduces ambiguity. Schema enforcement ensures that unauthorized fields, unexpected data types, or breaking changes are caught early in development rather than surfacing in production.

‍

2. Generating Test Clients and Stubs

Because gRPC code is generated directly from the Protobuf definition, testing frameworks use the same generated stubs as production clients. This eliminates discrepancies between test and runtime behavior.

Test clients simulate real service calls such as balance checks, payment authorization, or fraud scoring. These calls are executed exactly as they would be in production, using strongly typed request and response objects.

‍

3. Functional Testing of gRPC Methods

Each gRPC method is tested by invoking it through the client stub and validating the response. This includes success paths, edge cases, and failure scenarios.

For example, a payment service might test how a fraud detection service responds to valid transactions, high risk transactions, malformed requests, or missing credentials. Because gRPC behaves like local function calls, these tests are faster and more deterministic than traditional REST based tests.

‍

4. Performance and Load Testing Over HTTP/2

One of the most discussed topics in graphql vs grpc performance comparisons is throughput and latency. gRPC testing includes performance validation under load to ensure services scale predictably.

Tests measure response times, concurrent request handling, and connection efficiency using HTTP/2 multiplexing. This helps organizations validate the real world advantages of gRPC over REST, particularly in high throughput internal APIs.

‍

5. Security and Negative Testing

Security testing is a critical part of gRPC API testing. Teams validate TLS enforcement, authentication mechanisms, authorization logic, and error handling behavior.

Unlike REST, gRPC errors are structured and typed, making it easier to test how services respond to unauthorized access, malformed payloads, or unexpected input. Platforms like Levo extend this by running attack style payloads against gRPC endpoints to uncover authorization gaps, logic flaws, and unsafe assumptions before they reach production.

‍

6. Streaming and Edge Case Testing

Because gRPC supports client side, server side, and bi directional streaming, testing also covers long lived connections and continuous data flows. This is especially important for real time use cases like transaction monitoring, analytics pipelines, or alerting systems.

Tests validate that streams handle partial failures, reconnects, and backpressure correctly without data loss or instability.

Architecture of gRPC API

To understand how gRPC API testing fits into modern platforms, it helps to look at the underlying architecture.

• Protocol Buffers as the Test Foundation
  Protobuf schemas act as the single source of truth. They define not only how services communicate, but also what is considered valid behavior. For governance and security leaders, this means contracts are explicit, enforceable, and auditable.

• gRPC Client in Test Environments
  Test clients behave the same as production clients. They serialize requests, manage connections, and invoke remote methods transparently. This makes test results highly representative of real usage.

• gRPC Server and Contract Enforcement
  The gRPC server implements the logic defined in the Protobuf interface. During testing, it enforces strict adherence to the contract, rejecting invalid or unexpected input. This reduces runtime risk and improves overall system resilience.

• HTTP/2 Transport Layer
  All tests run over HTTP/2 to validate connection reuse, multiplexing, and latency characteristics. This ensures that performance assumptions hold under real network conditions.

• Interceptors and Observability Hooks
  Interceptors provide a powerful testing and control layer. They allow teams to inject logging, authentication checks, monitoring, and security validation into every request. Levo integrates at this layer to simulate real attack paths and identify weaknesses in gRPC request handling, authorization logic, and configuration before they impact customers.

Together, these components make gRPC API testing more structured, predictable, and aligned with business goals around reliability, performance, and risk reduction, setting a strong foundation for comparisons with GraphQL in the sections that follow.

What is GraphQL?

GraphQL is an open source query language and server side runtime designed to give clients precise control over the data they retrieve from an API. Instead of relying on multiple endpoints with fixed response structures, GraphQL uses a strongly typed schema to define available data types, their relationships, and the operations clients are allowed to perform. This schema serves as a clear contract between clients and servers, enabling consistent behavior across applications.

A defining characteristic in the grpc vs graphql conversation is GraphQL’s single endpoint model. Most GraphQL implementations expose one entry point, commonly /graphql, through which all queries and mutations are executed. This centralized access pattern simplifies platform governance, as authentication, authorization, logging, and monitoring can be enforced uniformly rather than spread across dozens or hundreds of REST endpoints.

GraphQL allows clients to request precisely the fields they need, no more and no less. For example, a mobile app that only requires a user’s name and profile image can specify just those fields in its query, avoiding the overhead of retrieving an entire user object. The server responds with a tailored JSON payload that matches the shape of the request, reducing unnecessary data transfer and improving perceived performance.

Because every request is validated against the schema, GraphQL minimizes unpredictable API behavior and reduces overfetching, a common challenge with REST based designs. From a security and risk management standpoint, this schema driven approach also limits unintended data exposure. Fields are only returned when explicitly requested and permitted, giving platform teams greater confidence that sensitive data is protected while still enabling flexible, client driven development.

How does GraphQL API Testing work?

GraphQL API testing focuses on verifying that queries, mutations, and subscriptions behave correctly, securely, and efficiently based on the schema driven contract. Because GraphQL allows clients to dynamically shape responses, testing goes beyond simple endpoint validation and instead centers on schema enforcement, resolver behavior, performance, and data access controls. This makes GraphQL testing especially important in environments where many teams and applications depend on the same backend data.

While tooling and implementations vary, GraphQL API testing generally follows a consistent execution flow.

1. Validate the Schema as the Source of Truth

Testing starts with the schema, which defines all exposed types, fields, and operations. The schema acts as a formal contract between clients and the server, making it the foundation for predictable behavior.

Tests verify that the schema is internally consistent, backward compatible, and aligned with business rules. Deprecated fields, breaking changes, and unauthorized data exposure can all be identified early by validating schema changes before deployment.

‍

2. Test Resolver Logic and Data Access

Every field in a GraphQL response is resolved by a resolver function. GraphQL testing validates that resolvers return correct data, enforce authorization rules, and handle error scenarios safely.

For example, a resolver that fetches user details might be tested to ensure it returns only permitted fields based on the caller’s role. Since resolvers often call databases, microservices, or third party APIs, tests also verify that downstream failures are handled gracefully without leaking sensitive information.

‍

3. Execute Queries and Mutations Through the Single Endpoint

Unlike REST or gRPC, GraphQL exposes a single HTTP endpoint, typically /graphql. All tests interact with this endpoint by sending queries or mutations using HTTP POST or GET.

This centralized access point simplifies testing. Authentication, rate limiting, logging, and monitoring behavior can be validated consistently across all operations, reducing blind spots that often appear in large REST API surfaces.

‍

4. Validate Query Shape and Response Structure

GraphQL API testing checks that responses exactly match the structure of the incoming query. Since clients can request nested fields and related objects, tests ensure that responses contain only the requested data and no additional fields.

This precision is critical for preventing overfetching and unintended data exposure. It also makes GraphQL API testing more deterministic, since the expected response shape is explicitly defined in the query itself.

‍

5. Performance and Abuse Scenario Testing

Performance testing plays a key role in graphql vs grpc performance discussions. GraphQL testing evaluates how the API behaves under complex queries, deep nesting, or high request volumes.

Tests may include limits on query depth, complexity, and execution time to prevent abuse scenarios such as overly expensive queries that could impact system stability. These controls are essential for protecting backend services while preserving GraphQL’s flexibility.

‍

6. Introspection and Tool Based Testing

GraphQL supports schema introspection, allowing tools to query the API for its structure. Testing platforms such as GraphiQL and Postman use introspection to automatically surface available types, fields, and operations.

This capability makes it easier for teams to build valid test cases, explore API behavior, and verify that schema changes behave as expected without writing extensive client code.

Architecture of GraphQL API

Understanding the core architecture of a GraphQL API helps clarify how testing fits into the overall system.

• Schema Definition
  Every GraphQL API is built around a schema written in the Schema Definition Language. The schema defines object types, fields, scalars, enums, and relationships. It strictly governs what data can be requested, providing a clear and enforceable contract for both development and testing.
  

• Root Types
  The schema defines root types that act as entry points into the API. The Query type controls read operations, Mutation handles data changes, and Subscription enables real time updates. These root types define the API's surface area and are central to testing the supported operations.

• Resolvers
  Resolvers are the execution layer of GraphQL. Each resolver determines how a specific field is fetched and returned. During testing, resolvers are validated for correctness, authorization enforcement, error handling, and performance characteristics.

• GraphQL Server and Endpoint
  The GraphQL server hosts the schema and resolvers and exposes a single HTTP endpoint, typically /graphql. This architecture centralizes traffic, making it easier to apply consistent security policies, observability, and testing coverage across the entire API.

• Operations and Requests
  Clients interact with the API by sending queries and mutations that explicitly define the required data. Tests validate that these operations return accurate results, enforce schema rules, and avoid overfetching or underfetching.

• Introspection and Testing Tools
  Introspection allows clients and testing tools to explore the schema dynamically. Tools such as GraphiQL and Postman rely on this capability to validate requests, simulate real usage, and confirm that the API behaves predictably as it evolves.

gRPC vs GraphQL: Differences 

Below is a high level comparison table that highlights the core differences between gRPC and GraphQL from an architectural, operational, and business impact perspective.

This table sets the foundation for deeper discussions around graphql over grpc, and how each approach aligns with performance, scalability, and governance requirements.

Types of vulnerabilities in gRPC vs GraphQL

Both gRPC and GraphQL introduce security advantages over traditional REST APIs, but they also create distinct classes of vulnerabilities based on how they are designed and used. Understanding these differences is critical for security, platform, and risk leaders because the attack surface is shaped as much by API architecture as by implementation quality.

Contract and Schema Related Vulnerabilities

In gRPC, the Protobuf contract is strict and strongly typed, which significantly reduces ambiguity. However, vulnerabilities arise when schema evolution is not managed carefully. A common issue is exposing internal fields or methods through Protobuf definitions that were intended only for internal use. Once compiled and deployed, these methods become callable by any authorized client.

Example: A backend team adds an AdminAdjustBalance method to a gRPC payment service for internal tooling but forgets to restrict access at the service layer. Any client with network access and valid credentials can invoke that method, leading to privilege escalation.

In GraphQL, schema exposure is more flexible but also riskier. Overly permissive schemas can unintentionally expose sensitive fields. Since clients control what they request, weak authorization checks at the resolver level can lead to data leakage.

Example

A GraphQL schema exposes a User type with an email and internalRiskScore field. If the resolver does not enforce role based access, a standard user query can retrieve internal risk metrics that were never meant to be client facing.

‍

Authorization and Access Control Gaps

Authorization failures are one of the most common vulnerabilities in both technologies, but they appear differently.

In gRPC, authorization is often implemented at the service or method level. If teams rely only on perimeter checks and assume internal traffic is trusted, fine grained authorization may be missing.

Example

A fraud detection gRPC service trusts all calls from the payments network segment. An attacker who gains access to a compromised service can laterally invoke sensitive fraud scoring methods across the environment.

In GraphQL, authorization must be enforced at the field or resolver level. Because a single query can traverse multiple objects, missing checks in even one resolver can expose sensitive data.

Example

A GraphQL query retrieves an order, customer profile, and billing details in one request. Authorization is enforced on the order resolver but not on the billing resolver, allowing unauthorized users to access payment data indirectly.

‍

Denial of Service and Resource Exhaustion

Resource exhaustion risks are a major differentiator in graphql vs grpc performance and security discussions.

gRPC is generally resilient due to HTTP/2 multiplexing and compact binary payloads, but it remains vulnerable to abuse via uncontrolled streaming or large message sizes.

Example

An attacker opens multiple long lived bi directional gRPC streams without limits, consuming server memory and threads until legitimate traffic is starved.

GraphQL is particularly susceptible to expensive query attacks. Deeply nested or highly complex queries can trigger excessive resolver execution and database calls.

Example

A client submits a deeply nested query requesting users, their orders, order items, suppliers, and supplier metadata without query depth or complexity limits, overwhelming backend systems with a single request.

‍

Input Validation and Injection Risks

In gRPC, strong typing reduces classic injection risks, but logic level flaws can still occur if input values are trusted blindly.

Example

A gRPC service validates that a request matches the Protobuf schema but does not validate business logic constraints. A negative transaction amount passes schema validation and triggers incorrect balance calculations.

In GraphQL, inputs are validated against the schema, but dynamic queries increase the risk of logic abuse and resolver level injection.

Example

A GraphQL mutation accepts a filter argument that is passed directly into a database query. Without proper sanitization inside the resolver, attackers can manipulate query behavior even though the schema validation passes.

‍

Introspection and Information Disclosure

GraphQL’s introspection feature is powerful for development and testing but can become a liability in production.

Example

An unauthenticated user runs an introspection query and discovers internal types, admin mutations, and deprecated fields. This information accelerates targeted attacks by revealing the full API surface.

gRPC does not support introspection in the same way, but service definitions can still be leaked through exposed Protobuf files or misconfigured repositories.

Example

A public repository accidentally includes Protobuf definitions for internal gRPC services, giving attackers a clear map of available methods and message structures.

‍

Observability and Blind Spots

Finally, visibility gaps create indirect vulnerabilities.

gRPC traffic is binary, which can limit inspection by traditional security tools if not explicitly supported.

Example

A security team relies on HTTP logging tools that cannot decode gRPC traffic, missing anomalous patterns in service to service calls.

GraphQL traffic is readable JSON, but the flexibility of queries can obscure intent if logging captures only endpoints and not query structure.

Example

Logs show repeated requests to /graphql, but without query level inspection, abusive or unauthorized queries go unnoticed.

Why These Differences Matter

In practice, neither technology is inherently more secure. The risk profile depends on how APIs are designed, tested, and governed. gRPC tends to concentrate risk around service level authorization, streaming abuse, and internal trust assumptions. GraphQL concentrates risk around schema exposure, resolver authorization, and query complexity.

Platforms like Levo help close these gaps by testing APIs the way attackers actually interact with them, validating authorization paths, simulating abuse scenarios, and surfacing vulnerabilities that traditional testing often misses. As organizations evaluate graphql over grpc or hybrid architectures, understanding these distinct vulnerability patterns is essential for making informed, risk aware decisions.

Benefits of gRPC and GraphQL APIs 

Both gRPC and GraphQL were created to address limitations in traditional REST based architectures, but they deliver value in different ways. Understanding the benefits of each helps organizations choose the right technology based on performance needs, client requirements, and long term platform strategy. 

Rather than treating this as a winner take all comparison, many modern systems use both, depending on where they provide the most impact.

Benefits of gRPC APIs

gRPC is designed for efficiency, consistency, and speed in distributed systems. These strengths make it particularly valuable for internal service to service communication and performance critical workloads.

One of the most significant advantages of gRPC over REST is performance. By using Protocol Buffers and HTTP/2, gRPC minimizes payload size and network overhead. This results in lower latency and higher throughput, which directly translates into faster transaction processing and more predictable system behavior at scale.

Strongly typed contracts are another major benefit. Protobuf definitions serve as enforceable contracts that reduce integration errors and improve cross team coordination. Changes are explicit and versioned, making it easier to manage backward compatibility in large microservices environments.

gRPC also supports advanced communication patterns out of the box. Client side streaming, server side streaming, and bi directional streaming enable real time data exchange that is difficult to implement efficiently with REST. This makes gRPC well suited for use cases like fraud detection, telemetry, real time analytics, and event driven pipelines.

From an operational perspective, gRPC’s use of HTTP/2 enables connection reuse and multiplexing, reducing infrastructure overhead. For platform teams, this means better resource utilization and lower cloud costs as traffic scales.

Benefits of GraphQL APIs

GraphQL excels at flexibility and efficient data access, especially in client facing applications. Its schema driven approach gives consumers precise control over the data they retrieve, improving performance and developer experience.

A key benefit of GraphQL is the elimination of overfetching and underfetching. Clients request only the fields they need, reducing payload size and unnecessary backend processing. This is especially valuable for mobile and web applications where bandwidth and responsiveness directly affect user experience.

The single endpoint model simplifies API consumption and governance. All queries and mutations flow through one entry point, making it easier to apply authentication, authorization, rate limiting, and monitoring consistently. This centralized access pattern is often cited as a benefit in graphql vs grpc discussions for client facing APIs.

GraphQL’s schema also enables rapid iteration. Teams can add new fields and capabilities without breaking existing clients, supporting faster product development and experimentation. Introspection and self documenting schemas further reduce onboarding time for developers and partners.

From a data aggregation standpoint, GraphQL shines. A single query can combine data from multiple backend services, databases, or third party APIs. This makes GraphQL an effective abstraction layer on top of microservices, even when those services are implemented using gRPC.

Shared Business Value

At a high level, both technologies improve API reliability, scalability, and developer productivity compared to traditional approaches. gRPC focuses on efficiency, predictability, and performance in backend systems, while GraphQL focuses on flexibility, precision, and client experience.

For many organizations, the most effective strategy is not choosing gRPC vs GraphQL, but understanding where each fits best. gRPC often powers internal platforms and high throughput workflows, while GraphQL provides a flexible interface for consuming that data across web, mobile, and partner applications. When aligned with rigorous testing and security practices, both can play a critical role in building resilient, future ready API ecosystems.

When to use which: gRPC vs GraphQL API

Choosing between gRPC and GraphQL is less about technical preference and more about aligning API architecture with business priorities such as performance, risk management, scalability, and speed to market. Each technology solves a different class of problems, and understanding when to use one over the other helps organizations avoid unnecessary complexity while reducing operational and security risk.

When gRPC Is the Better Choice

gRPC is the right choice when internal systems require speed, predictability, and strict control over service interactions. It is particularly effective in the following scenarios.

High throughput internal microservices: When core backend services communicate frequently and at scale, gRPC provides lower latency and higher throughput than traditional REST APIs. The combination of Protocol Buffers and HTTP/2 reduces network overhead and improves performance consistency under load.

Example

A payments platform uses gRPC to connect transaction processing, ledger updates, and reconciliation services, ensuring fast and reliable execution during peak traffic periods.

Performance critical business workflows: In workflows where delays directly affect revenue, user experience, or risk exposure, gRPC’s efficiency becomes a strategic advantage. Its binary serialization and connection multiplexing help minimize response times.

Example

A fraud detection system evaluates transactions in real time using gRPC to exchange signals and scores across multiple services without introducing bottlenecks.

‍

Strong contracts and change control requirements: Organizations that need clear ownership, strict interfaces, and predictable change management benefit from gRPC’s Protobuf based contracts. These contracts reduce ambiguity and integration errors across large teams.

Example

A regulated financial services organization uses gRPC internally to enforce well defined service boundaries that align with audit and compliance requirements.

Real time and streaming use cases: gRPC natively supports client side, server side, and bi directional streaming, making it well suited for continuous data flows and real time systems.

Example

A risk monitoring platform streams transaction events and alerts between services using bi directional gRPC streams.

‍

Controlled internal environments: gRPC works best in environments where client and server teams are coordinated and infrastructure is managed centrally. This reduces exposure to external clients and simplifies security enforcement.

Example

An enterprise platform standardizes on gRPC for all internal microservices while exposing a separate API layer for external consumption.

This pointwise framing makes it easier to assess where gRPC delivers the most value, setting a clear contrast with scenarios where GraphQL is a better fit.

When GraphQL Is the Better Choice

GraphQL is the better choice when APIs are consumed directly by end user applications or external partners and flexibility is a primary requirement. It is particularly effective in scenarios where client needs vary and change frequently.

Client facing web and mobile applications: GraphQL works well when multiple client types consume the same backend data but require different response shapes. Allowing clients to request only the fields they need improves performance and simplifies front end development.

Example

A consumer SaaS platform supports web, iOS, and Android applications. Each client uses GraphQL to fetch only the data required for its specific user experience, avoiding redundant endpoints and payload bloat.

Data aggregation across multiple systems: When applications need to combine data from several backend services, GraphQL provides a clean abstraction layer. A single query can orchestrate calls across databases, microservices, and third party APIs.

Example

A marketplace application retrieves product details, pricing, availability, and seller ratings from different systems through a single GraphQL query.

‍

Rapid product iteration and API evolution: GraphQL enables teams to add new fields and capabilities without breaking existing clients. This supports faster experimentation and reduces the coordination burden across teams.

Example

An e commerce platform introduces personalization and A B testing features by exposing new fields in the GraphQL schema without requiring updates to existing client queries.

Simplified external API governance: The single endpoint model centralizes authentication, authorization, logging, and rate limiting. This makes GraphQL easier to govern for partner and public APIs.

Example

A B2B platform exposes partner integrations via GraphQL, applying consistent access controls and monitoring through a single managed endpoint.

‍

When Using Both Makes Strategic Sense

For many organizations, the most effective architecture combines both gRPC and GraphQL, leveraging each where it delivers the most value.

High performance internals with flexible external access: gRPC serves as a fast, efficient communication layer between internal services, while GraphQL provides a client friendly interface on top.

Example

An enterprise commerce platform uses gRPC internally for inventory, pricing, and fulfillment services. A GraphQL API aggregates these services for web, mobile, and partner applications.

Clear separation of concerns: Using gRPC internally and GraphQL externally creates a clean boundary between system internals and consumer facing APIs. This reduces risk and limits exposure of internal service details.

Example

A financial services organization isolates internal transaction systems behind gRPC and exposes only approved data and operations through a GraphQL layer.

Balanced performance and flexibility: This hybrid approach allows organizations to optimize for low latency and throughput internally while still offering flexible, evolving APIs to customers and partners.

Example

A SaaS provider processes real time events through gRPC based microservices and exposes analytics and reporting through GraphQL dashboards.

Framing the choice this way makes it easier for leadership teams to align API strategy with performance goals, risk tolerance, and long term platform scalability without forcing a single technology decision.

Challenges of using gRPC and GraphQL and their solutions 

While gRPC and GraphQL solve many limitations of traditional REST APIs, they also introduce new operational and security challenges. These challenges become more pronounced as organizations scale their API footprint, increase deployment velocity, and decentralize development across teams. For security and platform leaders, the core issues are less about the protocols themselves and more about visibility, governance, and control.

Below are the most common challenges organizations face when adopting gRPC and GraphQL, along with practical approaches to addressing them.

1. Difficult to Catalogue APIs at Scale

Both gRPC and GraphQL APIs proliferate quickly. gRPC encourages fine grained microservices, while GraphQL promotes rapid schema evolution and client driven queries. As teams ship faster, keeping an accurate inventory of APIs, methods, schemas, and fields becomes increasingly tricky.

In gRPC environments, hundreds of Protobuf files and service definitions may be spread across repositories. In GraphQL, a single endpoint can mask an expanding surface area of queries, mutations, and fields.

Why this matters

Without a complete catalogue, organizations struggle to assess exposure, enforce ownership, or respond quickly to incidents.

How to address it

Centralized API discovery and continuous inventory management are essential. Organizations should automatically discover gRPC services, methods, and GraphQL schemas directly from runtime traffic and CI pipelines rather than relying on manual tracking.

‍

2. Difficult to Document in Fast Moving Teams

Although both gRPC and GraphQL are schema driven, documentation often lags behind implementation. Developers rarely have time or incentives to maintain detailed documentation, especially in high velocity environments.

In gRPC, Protobuf files may exist without meaningful comments or usage guidance. In GraphQL, introspection provides structural visibility but not business context, authorization rules, or data sensitivity.

Why this matters

Poor documentation slows onboarding, increases misuse, and makes security reviews harder and more error prone.

How to address it

Documentation should be generated automatically from schemas and enriched with runtime insights. Mapping real usage patterns, authorization behavior, and data sensitivity to schemas creates documentation that reflects how APIs actually behave, not just how they were designed.

‍

3. Difficult to Test Effectively Due to Limited Visibility and Resources

Testing gRPC and GraphQL APIs is more complex than testing REST APIs. Binary payloads, streaming behavior, dynamic queries, and deep resolver chains increase the effort required for comprehensive coverage. At the same time, security and QA teams are often resource constrained.

Without a clear catalogue or documentation, teams do not know what to test, let alone how to prioritize risk.

Why this matters

Gaps in testing allow logic flaws, authorization bypasses, and performance issues to reach production, where the cost of failure is significantly higher.

How to address it

Testing must be risk driven and automated. Instead of relying solely on manual test cases, organizations should use schema aware testing that automatically generates test scenarios based on Protobuf definitions and GraphQL schemas. This approach ensures coverage even as APIs evolve.

‍

4. Difficult to Defend Against Business Logic and Access Control Vulnerabilities

The most serious risks in gRPC and GraphQL are rarely simple injection flaws. They are complex business logic issues, authorization gaps, and unintended data exposure.

In gRPC, internal trust assumptions can lead to over privileged service calls. In GraphQL, missing authorization checks in resolvers or overly flexible queries can expose sensitive data in unexpected ways.

Why this matters

These vulnerabilities are hard to detect with traditional security tools and often evade perimeter defenses. They can lead to financial loss, regulatory exposure, and reputational damage.

How to address it

Organizations must test APIs the way attackers do. This means validating authorization at the method and field level, simulating abuse scenarios, and testing real business workflows rather than individual endpoints. Continuous testing across development and runtime environments is key to catching these issues early.

Best Practices to follow for gRPC and GraphQL API Testing

Effective gRPC and GraphQL API testing requires a shift in mindset. Traditional approaches that focus on periodic scans or a small subset of public APIs no longer scale. Modern API environments are dynamic, distributed, and shipped continuously. The following best practices reflect what works in real organizations operating at high velocity, while directly addressing the most common gaps seen by security and platform teams.

Test All APIs, Not Just High Traffic External Ones

A common mistake is prioritizing only public or high traffic APIs for testing. In reality, the most damaging incidents often originate from internal or partner APIs that were assumed to be low risk.

gRPC APIs are frequently internal and trusted by default, which makes authorization flaws harder to detect and more dangerous when exploited. GraphQL APIs often expose large data surfaces behind a single endpoint, including partner only or internal fields.

Best practice is to test all APIs equally, including internal services, partner integrations, imported specifications, and low traffic endpoints. Coverage should reflect business criticality, not just external exposure. Modern testing platforms discover and catalog APIs directly from runtime traffic so nothing is missed.

Test Continuously, Not Quarterly or Annually

API risk changes every time code is deployed. New fields, methods, roles, or authorization logic can introduce vulnerabilities instantly. Annual or quarterly testing cycles are misaligned with modern deployment velocity.

Testing frequency should match deployment frequency. If APIs ship daily, testing must run daily. If they ship multiple times a day, testing must keep pace automatically.

Continuous testing ensures that new gRPC methods or GraphQL schema changes are validated as soon as they are introduced, reducing the risk window between deployment and detection. Levo enables configurable, continuous security testing so validation evolves alongside the codebase rather than lagging behind it.

Perform Offensive Security Testing Using Real Payloads

Scanning alone is not sufficient for gRPC or GraphQL APIs. Many of the most serious issues are business logic flaws, access control bypasses, and data exposure vulnerabilities that scanners cannot detect.

Best practice is to perform offensive security testing that simulates real attacker behavior. This includes privilege escalation attempts, IDOR and BOLA scenarios, parameter manipulation, role abuse, and logic based misuse of valid operations.

For GraphQL, this means testing query abuse, resolver authorization gaps, and sensitive field exposure. For gRPC, this means testing method level access, streaming misuse, and internal trust assumptions. Levo builds endpoint specific payloads grounded in real runtime behavior, so tests reflect what is actually exploitable, not theoretical issues.

Automate Everything, Including Authentication

Manual testing does not scale, and authentication is often the biggest bottleneck. Security teams lose valuable time configuring tokens, rotating credentials, and troubleshooting failed test runs instead of focusing on remediation.

Best practice is full automation, including authentication and authorization handling. Testing systems should automatically detect and adapt to OAuth2, JWT, API keys, and mTLS, generating and renewing credentials without developer intervention.

Authentication automation ensures tests run successfully across environments and roles, preserves security bandwidth, and eliminates reliance on fragile manual setups. Levo automates authentication end to end so continuous testing can run unattended while still exercising real access paths and role boundaries.

Why These Practices Matter

gRPC and GraphQL APIs power critical business systems, but their speed and flexibility amplify risk when visibility and testing fall behind. Testing everything, testing continuously, testing offensively, and automating are no longer best practices in theory. They are prerequisites for maintaining trust, uptime, and compliance at scale.

When these practices are embedded into everyday delivery workflows, security stops being a bottleneck and becomes a force multiplier, allowing organizations to move fast without accumulating unseen risk.

Achieve Complete API Security for gRPC with Levo

Modern gRPC and GraphQL environments demand continuous, intelligent security. Point in time scans and static schema reviews fail in practice because APIs ship too fast, schemas evolve constantly, and real risk lives in business logic and access paths. Levo closes this gap by delivering automated discovery, schema aware testing, and runtime context purpose built for gRPC and GraphQL APIs.

Levo strengthens gRPC and GraphQL API security end to end by:

1. Continuous Discovery of gRPC and GraphQL APIs

Levo continuously discovers gRPC services and GraphQL APIs by observing real runtime traffic, ingesting Protobuf and GraphQL schemas, and correlating CI/CD metadata. This eliminates blind spots caused by undocumented services, shadow APIs, and rapidly evolving schemas.

For gRPC, Levo identifies services, methods, and message structures even when Protobuf files are incomplete or out of date. For GraphQL, it continuously maps queries, mutations, and schema changes behind a single endpoint.

This gives security teams a complete, always current inventory of internal, external, and partner APIs without relying on manual registration.

‍

2. Schema Aware, Context Driven Security Testing

Generic scanners are ineffective against gRPC and GraphQL. Levo generates intelligent tests by combining schemas with real traffic behavior.

For gRPC, Levo reads Protobuf definitions and observed message patterns to mutate fields correctly, probe method level authorization, and test streaming misuse without breaking services. For GraphQL, Levo models resolver behavior, query depth, and data relationships to uncover authorization gaps and data exposure issues that static tools miss.

This schema aware approach enables detection of complex business logic flaws, BOLA and IDOR issues, and sensitive data leaks with significantly lower noise.

‍

3. Native Authentication and Access Control Handling

Authentication is where most gRPC and GraphQL testing fails. Levo handles it natively.

Levo automatically detects and adapts to OAuth2, JWT, API keys, and mTLS for gRPC and GraphQL APIs. It generates, injects, refreshes, and rotates tokens without manual configuration, allowing tests to execute across real roles and access paths.

This enables realistic access control testing, including privilege escalation and role abuse scenarios, without burdening developers or security teams.

‍

4. Shift Left and Continuous Testing Aligned with Deployment Velocity

Levo integrates directly into CI/CD pipelines so security testing runs whenever APIs change, not once a quarter. New gRPC methods, updated Protobuf schemas, and GraphQL field additions are automatically tested as they are introduced.

Scheduled tests also run in staging and production like environments, ensuring that runtime behavior matches design assumptions. This closes the gap between development and production security.

‍

5. Runtime Monitoring and Exploit Detection

Levo continuously monitors live gRPC and GraphQL traffic to detect risky behavior, schema drift, and exploitable patterns.

For gRPC, this includes unexpected method access, anomalous streaming behavior, and internal trust boundary violations. For GraphQL, Levo detects abusive queries, unauthorized field access, and suspicious resolver execution paths.

This runtime awareness enables early detection of real exploitation attempts, not just theoretical risk.

‍

6. Sensitive Data Flow Mapping and Exposure Detection

Levo maps sensitive data flows across gRPC methods and GraphQL fields using runtime observation rather than assumptions. This reveals where regulated or confidential data is accessed, by whom, and through which APIs.

This capability is critical for preventing unintended data exposure and meeting compliance requirements as schemas evolve.

‍

7. Developer Ready Findings and Actionable Remediation for API vulnerabilities

Every finding Levo produces is tied to a real request, schema element, and access path. For gRPC, this includes the exact method and message field. For GraphQL, this includes the query, resolver, and field involved.

Findings are reproducible, low noise, and mapped to service and team ownership, enabling faster remediation without requiring deep protocol expertise.

‍

8. One Platform Across the Entire API Lifecycle

Levo combines visibility, governance, and production protection in a single platform. It covers the entire SDLC, from shift left testing during development to continuous runtime security in production.

‍

9. Runtime Threat Detection and Protection

Securing gRPC and GraphQL APIs requires visibility into their behavior in production and the ability to respond when real threats emerge. Many attacks are schema compliant and only become apparent through runtime behavior, not static analysis or pre deployment testing.

Levo provides continuous runtime threat detection by observing live gRPC and GraphQL traffic with full application context. It detects anomalous behavior such as unauthorized method access, abusive query patterns, privilege escalation attempts, schema misuse, and sensitive data exposure. Detection is grounded in real traffic, roles, and access paths, significantly reducing false positives and surfacing only exploitable risk.

Detection alone is not sufficient. Levo pairs this with precise runtime threat protection that enforces security controls without disrupting legitimate traffic. Using kernel level visibility and local decision making, Levo can block malicious requests, restrict abusive behavior, and implement policy driven controls with minimal latency. Protections adapt dynamically based on observed threat signals rather than static rules.

This combination allows organizations to identify real attacks early and stop them safely in production, closing the gap between detection and enforcement.

Enterprises can confidently discover, govern, and protect their gRPC and GraphQL APIs at scale without slowing delivery or expanding security headcount. This is how API security becomes an enabler of velocity, not a blocker.

Conclusion

APIs are no longer just technical plumbing hidden deep inside engineering stacks. They have evolved into strategic, revenue generating products that form the backbone of modern digital businesses. According to the 2025 State of the API Report from Postman, a significant percentage of organizations now generate revenue directly from their API programs, with many attributing a meaningful portion of total revenue to these integrations. In this era, APIs also power intelligent agent ecosystems and increasingly shape AI strategy across enterprises. At the same time, the same report highlights that API work has become core to software development and product delivery, with developers spending substantial time building, testing, and documenting APIs that fuel both human and machine consumption.

With this shift, APIs such as SOAP, REST, gRPC, and GraphQL are central to business outcomes from enabling seamless partner integrations to powering AI agents at machine scale. But without robust security practices, the very growth that APIs unlock can quickly erode, exposing sensitive data, enabling unauthorized access, and creating exploitable business logic gaps.

To retain the strategic benefits of APIs and support sustainable growth, it is therefore essential to secure all APIs across all phases of the software lifecycle from early development and CI/CD pipelines through to runtime production traffic.

That is Levo’s proposition.

Levo enables organizations to continuously discover, govern, and protect their APIs including gRPC and GraphQL by delivering real traffic aware API inventory, schema aware security testing, automated authentication handling, and runtime anomaly detection. By aligning visibility, governance, and production protection across the entire SDLC, Levo helps enterprises secure their API products in a way that keeps pace with modern delivery velocity and evolving threat landscapes.

With Levo, API security becomes an enabler of velocity and innovation, not a bottleneck ensuring that the value created by APIs is retained, amplified, and protected.