Call For Papers
Contact Us

  JSON vs XML: A Comparative Performance Analysis of Data Exchange Formats  
  Authors : Saurabh Zunke; Veronica D’Souza
  Cite as:


Service Oriented Architecture is integrated in the very fabric of the nature of Internet. The Internet as it exists today is made up of numerous components which operate asynchronously. These independent components communicate with each other using a specific set of formats that standardize the communication and regulate the coherence of the communication. The SOA structure is made up of multiple loosely coupled components that can be broadly classified as service producers and service consumers. The loose coupling allows enterprises to respond to changes quickly by updating, replacing and changing concerned modules with flexibility, without affecting other components coupled to it. This paper first compares the features of the two most widely used Data Exchange formats for communication between these components and finally, provides a comparative analysis on the performance of these formats using benchmarks.


Published In : IJCSN Journal Volume 3, Issue 4

Date of Publication : August 2014

Pages : 257 - 261

Figures : 07

Tables : 01

Publication Link : JSON vs XML: A Comparative Performance Analysis of Data Exchange Formats




Saurabh Zunke : Deloitte Consulting US India Pvt Ltd Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh 500081, India

Veronica D’Souza : Vishwakarma Institute of Information Technology, University of Pune Pune, Maharashtra 411048, India








Service Oriented Architecture

Comparative Performance Analysis

Data Exchange formats

As far as performance is concerned, the JSON data exchange format is the clear winner between the two. In terms of both memory footprint as well as the parsing runtime, JSON delivers better performance at the cost of readability and flexibility. Even with compression enabled, XML produced a lot more overhead in the data stream than JSON. JSON lacks the attributes that help define an exchange contract between consumers and producers. This lack of contract adherence fails to maintain coherence in the communication between the two parties that exchange data.










[1] “Extensible Markup Language (XML) 1.1 (Second Edition)”, http://www.w3.org/

[2] “The ‘application/json’ Media Type for JavaScript Object Notation (JSON)”, RFC4627, http://www.ietf.org/

[3] “The JSON Data Interchange Format”, ECMA 404, http://www.ecma-international.org/

[4] “Caliper Design Document”, https://code.google.com/p/caliper/

[5] Jackson Documentation, http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonDocumentation

[6] https://jaxb.java.net/

[7] “GZIP file format specification version 4.3”, RFC1952, http://www.gzip.org/

[8] Zhang Yu, “Research of Conversion Method of Entity Object and JSON Data”, The 2nd International Conference on Computer Application and System Modeling 2012.

[9] Ricardo Queirós, “JSON on Mobile: is there an Efficient Parser?” Dagstuhl Research Online Publication Server, Volume 38 2014.

[10] Danut-Octavian SIMION, “Java facilities in processing XML files - JAXB and generating PDF reports”, Informatica Economica, Volume 12, Issue 3 2008.