DEV Community

Cover image for 🚀 Scaling Up: Why I Chose FastAPI Over Flask and Django for a Data API
Robert Tidball
Robert Tidball

Posted on

🚀 Scaling Up: Why I Chose FastAPI Over Flask and Django for a Data API

#python #api #fastapi #gcp

🚀 Scaling Up: Why I Chose FastAPI Over Flask and Django for a Data API

As a developer, when you set out to build a new data service—like my recent project, FXMacroData (check out the live API at FXMacroData - Real-time Forex Data) the framework choice is crucial. My goal was simple: serve high-frequency macroeconomic data instantly and reliably.

I narrowed the field down to the Python giants: Flask, Django, and FastAPI. While Flask is famously lightweight and Django is the enterprise powerhouse, I ultimately landed on FastAPI. Here's why that decision was a game-changer for building a performant, modern data API designed for the cloud.

The API Mandate: Speed, Concurrency, and Serverless

The core requirement for the FXMacroData API is high concurrency and an architecture optimized for modern cloud deployments, specifically serverless environments like Google Cloud Run.

  • Flask (Sync): Standard Flask is synchronous (WSGI), meaning it blocks a worker thread while waiting for I/O (like a database query). This inefficiency makes it harder to scale cost-effectively in a serverless environment where every millisecond of CPU time matters.
  • Django (Monolithic): Django is excellent, but it’s a heavyweight framework. For a pure API backend, its many built-in components were simply overkill. Deploying a massive framework just to serve a few data endpoints is inefficient, especially when using a flexible NoSQL backend like Firestore. Its complexity and synchronous default were hurdles to fast, cost-effective serverless deployment.

⚡️ FastAPI: Natively Async for Cloud Run

FastAPI is built on the modern ASGI standard, making it asynchronous (async/await) from the ground up. This was the single biggest performance advantage:

  1. Non-Blocking I/O: Most API operations are I/O-bound (waiting for the database or network). Because FastAPI's worker doesn't block, it can efficiently handle hundreds of concurrent requests using minimal resources. This is essential for Cloud Run's scaling model.
  2. Serverless Integration: Being lightweight and ASGI-native means FastAPI runs perfectly within the brief lifespan of a serverless container. It integrates cleanly with external services like Firestore, making it the ideal choice for a stateless, instant-scaling microservice.

The Code Difference: I/O Concurrency

The benefit of native asynchronous programming is immediately clear when requesting data from multiple sources.

➡️ Flask (Synchronous/Blocking)

The total execution time is the sum of the two delays (approx. 2 seconds), as the second call must wait for the first to complete.

# Flask (Synchronous)
import time
from flask import Flask
app = Flask(__name__)

# Execution runs sequentially: A waits for B to finish.
@app.route("/")
def sync_example():
    time.sleep(1)  # Wait for Source A
    time.sleep(1)  # Wait for Source B
    return "Total Time: ~2.0s"
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

➡️ FastAPI (Asynchronous/Non-Blocking)

The total execution time is the maximum of the two delays (approx. 1 second), as both I/O operations are initiated concurrently.

# FastAPI (Asynchronous)
import asyncio
from fastapi import FastAPI
app = FastAPI()

# Execution runs concurrently: A and B start at the same time.
@app.get("/")
async def async_example():
    await asyncio.gather(
        asyncio.sleep(1),  # Wait for Source A
        asyncio.sleep(1)   # Wait for Source B
    )
    return "Total Time: ~1.0s"
Enter fullscreen mode Exit fullscreen mode

🧠 The Productivity Bonus: Clean Code and Auto-Docs

Beyond performance and cloud architecture, FastAPI delivered on developer experience:

  • It uses Pydantic models and Python type hints for automatic data validation and serialization.
  • It generates interactive OpenAPI documentation (Swagger UI) automatically.

Ultimately, FastAPI allowed me to build a high-performance, stateless API that perfectly matches the pay-per-use efficiency of Google Cloud Run, making it technically superior and far more cost-effective than using an over-engineered framework like Django for this specific task.

If you're building a new API focused on speed, data movement, and cloud-native scaling, the choice is clear: go async with FastAPI.

Top comments (0)