🦀 Reqwest vs. Deboa: Which Rust HTTP Client is Right for Your Project?

When building modern applications in Rust, an efficient and reliable HTTP client is essential. Two popular choices in the Rust ecosystem are reqwest and deboa. While reqwest is the long-standing, feature-rich powerhouse, deboa is emerging as a compelling, lightweight alternative.

This post dives into their key differences, with a focus on performance and suitability for different use cases.

---

🏗️ Core Philosophy and Design

Reqwest: The Feature-Rich Standard

reqwest is often considered the de-facto standard for asynchronous HTTP requests in Rust. It's built on top of the powerful hyper library, which provides the underlying HTTP implementation.

• Key Design: A high-level, easy-to-use API that provides both blocking and asynchronous modes. It's designed for completeness, offering extensive features like JSON serialization/deserialization, redirects, cookie handling, and support for both native-tls and rustls for TLS connections.
• Dependency Footprint: Due to its broad feature set and the use of hyper and an asynchronous runtime like tokio (or async-std), reqwest can have a larger dependency tree and a greater compiled binary size.

Deboa: The Lightweight and Flexible Contender

deboa is a more recent and developer-centric HTTP client. The name, which means "I'm ok" in Portuguese, suggests its focus on straightforward usability and efficiency.

• Key Design: A straightforward, non-opinionated, and highly flexible client, also built on hyper. It aims to provide essential modern features—including flexible authentication, serialization (JSON, XML, MsgPack), and middleware support—while maintaining simplicity and a lighter touch.
• Dependency Footprint: deboa positions itself as a more lightweight alternative. It's especially suited for projects where smaller binary size or a more focused feature set is a priority. It offers compatibility with various runtimes (tokio, smol, compio) and pluggable features.

---

⚡ Performance and Binary Size Comparison

Direct, head-to-head performance benchmarks between reqwest and deboa are difficult to find, as performance is often heavily influenced by configuration and workload. However, we can analyze the common trade-offs.

📊 Performance Factors

Feature	reqwest	deboa	Implication for Performance
Foundation	hyper	hyper	Both utilize the high-performance hyper core.
TLS Backend	native-tls (default) or rustls	rustls is common	Configuration matters greatly. reqwest's default native-tls can sometimes be slower for client creation than rustls (especially without client reuse), but a properly configured reqwest with rustls-tls can be very fast.
Client Reuse	Critical for performance.	Critical for performance.	Both clients should be instantiated once and reused to avoid the overhead of setting up TLS and connection pooling.
Runtime	Heavily integrated with tokio (though configurable).	Supports multiple runtimes (tokio, smol, compio).	deboa's flexibility could be beneficial in environments where a specific runtime other than tokio is preferred or provides an edge.

📉 Binary Size

One of the most notable distinctions is in size. reqwest is generally heavier due to its extensive feature set and dependencies. For projects where binary size is a critical constraint (e.g., small embedded systems or environments with strict deployment limits), deboa or other specialized, minimalistic clients are often the preferred choice.

⚠️ Caveat on Performance Benchmarks

It's important to note that many reports on reqwest performance issues (such as inconsistencies or slowness compared to other tools) often trace back to:

1. Not reusing the reqwest::Client: Creating a new client for every request incurs high overhead, especially for TLS handshakes.
2. Using default features: The default native-tls can be slower than the rustls-tls feature for client creation time in some contexts.

When used correctly, both clients provide high performance, leveraging the efficiency of the hyper HTTP stack.

---

🎯 Which Should You Choose?

Choose reqwest if:

• You need a complete solution: You want a well-established, battle-tested client with a high-level API for nearly every common HTTP use case (forms, redirects, advanced authentication, etc.).
• You are new to Rust networking: Its excellent documentation and large community make it easier to get help and find examples.
• Binary size is not a primary concern: You're building a standard backend service or application where the small size penalty is acceptable for the feature completeness.

Choose deboa if:

• You prioritize a lightweight binary: You want an efficient client with a smaller dependency footprint.
• You need runtime flexibility: You are building an application that needs to be compatible with a runtime other than the default tokio ecosystem, such as smol or compio.
• You prefer a focused API: You want a modern, less-opinionated client that provides core features like pluggable serialization and middleware without the bloat of more niche utilities.

Ultimately, both reqwest and deboa are excellent choices in the Rust ecosystem. Your decision should be based on your project's specific needs for features, binary size, and required ecosystem integration.

This video gives a good overview of how to set up reqwest and use it for basic monitoring tasks. Monitoring URLs with Tokio and Reqwest | Rust HTTP Monitor Part 1