StackShareStackShare
Follow on
StackShare

Discover and share technology stacks from companies around the world.

Follow on

© 2025 StackShare. All rights reserved.

Product

  • Stacks
  • Tools
  • Feed

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  1. Stackups
  2. Application & Data
  3. Frameworks
  4. Serialization Frameworks
  5. Apache Thrift vs Avro

Apache Thrift vs Avro

OverviewComparisonAlternatives

Overview

Apache Thrift
Apache Thrift
Stacks193
Followers245
Votes0
GitHub Stars10.8K
Forks4.1K
Avro
Avro
Stacks419
Followers178
Votes0

Apache Thrift vs Avro: What are the differences?

  1. Key Difference 1: Data Serialization Apache Thrift and Avro have different approaches to data serialization. Thrift uses a binary format that is optimized for efficient data transport, making it suitable for high-performance use cases. On the other hand, Avro uses a compact binary encoding that includes the schema with the data, making it self-describing and providing compatibility between different versions of schemas.

  2. Key Difference 2: Schema Evolution When it comes to schema evolution, Apache Thrift and Avro differ in their capabilities. Thrift relies on explicit versioning and requires both the client and the server to use compatible versions of the schema. Any changes to the schema necessitate updating and redeploying all related services. Avro, on the other hand, supports schema evolution, allowing new fields to be added and older fields to be read with their default values, without requiring a corresponding change in the client code.

  3. Key Difference 3: Language Support Apache Thrift and Avro also differ in terms of language support. Thrift provides support for a broader range of languages, including C++, Java, Python, and more. Avro, on the other hand, primarily focuses on Java and a limited set of languages, which may be a consideration when choosing the appropriate technology stack for a project.

  4. Key Difference 4: Performance In terms of performance, Apache Thrift and Avro exhibit different characteristics. Thrift is generally considered to have better performance due to its compact binary encoding and code generation, which eliminates the need for reflection. Avro, while still performant, incurs the overhead of including schema information with the data, which adds some additional size and processing cost.

  5. Key Difference 5: Schema Registry Another key difference between Apache Thrift and Avro is the presence of a schema registry. Avro typically utilizes a schema registry, which provides centralized schema management, versioning, and compatibility checks. Thrift, on the other hand, does not have a built-in schema registry, requiring manual coordination and version management between services.

  6. Key Difference 6: Ecosystem and Maturity In terms of ecosystem and maturity, Apache Thrift and Avro have some notable differences. Thrift has been around for a longer time, has a larger user base, and is backed by the Apache Software Foundation. It has a well-established ecosystem, including support for various protocols and frameworks. Avro, while also widely used, has a relatively smaller ecosystem and may have fewer resources available for certain use cases.

In summary, Apache Thrift and Avro differ in their approaches to data serialization, schema evolution, language support, performance, the presence of a schema registry, and their ecosystem and maturity. Choose Apache Thrift for optimized transport and better support across languages, or choose Avro for self-describing data, schema evolution, and compatibility between different schema versions.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs
CLI (Node.js)
or
Manual

Detailed Comparison

Apache Thrift
Apache Thrift
Avro
Avro

The Apache Thrift software framework, for scalable cross-language services development, combines a software stack with a code generation engine to build services that work efficiently and seamlessly between C++, Java, Python, PHP, Ruby, Erlang, Perl, Haskell, C#, Cocoa, JavaScript, Node.js, Smalltalk, OCaml and Delphi and other languages.

It is a row-oriented remote procedure call and data serialization framework developed within Apache's Hadoop project. It uses JSON for defining data types and protocols, and serializes data in a compact binary format.

-
Schema Evolution; Code Generation; Untagged Data; Language Support
Statistics
GitHub Stars
10.8K
GitHub Stars
-
GitHub Forks
4.1K
GitHub Forks
-
Stacks
193
Stacks
419
Followers
245
Followers
178
Votes
0
Votes
0
Integrations
No integrations available
Java
Java
PHP
PHP
Python
Python
Ruby
Ruby
C++
C++
C#
C#

What are some alternatives to Apache Thrift, Avro?

MessagePack

MessagePack

It is an efficient binary serialization format. It lets you exchange data among multiple languages like JSON. But it's faster and smaller. Small integers are encoded into a single byte, and typical short strings require only one extra byte in addition to the strings themselves.

Protobuf

Protobuf

Protocol buffers are Google's language-neutral, platform-neutral, extensible mechanism for serializing structured data – think XML, but smaller, faster, and simpler.

Serde

Serde

It is a framework for serializing and deserializing Rust data structures efficiently and generically. The ecosystem consists of data structures that know how to serialize and deserialize themselves along with data formats that know how to serialize and deserialize other things. It provides the layer by which these two groups interact with each other, allowing any supported data structure to be serialized and deserialized using any supported data format.

Sonic

Sonic

It is a blazingly fast JSON serializing & deserializing library, accelerated by JIT (just-in-time compiling) and SIMD (single-instruction-multiple-data).

Related Comparisons

Bootstrap
Materialize

Bootstrap vs Materialize

Laravel
Django

Django vs Laravel vs Node.js

Bootstrap
Foundation

Bootstrap vs Foundation vs Material UI

Node.js
Spring Boot

Node.js vs Spring-Boot

Liquibase
Flyway

Flyway vs Liquibase