Shipvane · 4 AE roles
Marco E. · joined Cargolio
Fleetora · first roles in DEgRPC alternatives_
As of 4 November 2026, 39 api specs data formats are named by companies instead of gRPC: JSON by 6,396 companies, XML by 5,264, Model Context Protocol by 4,892.
As of 4 November 2026 · refreshed daily · counts move as websites, DNS and career sites are re-read.
- gRPC, companies in postings
- 1,753
- Most used alternative
- JSON · 6,396
- Fastest hiring, 90 days
- JSON
- Alternatives ranked
- 39
- Catalogue
- T-1.0.1-prov
api specs data formats companies choose instead of gRPC
Companies naming each tool in their own postings, and postings in the last 90 days. Bars are relative to the category leader.
| # | Alternative | Companies | companies | vs gRPC | postings, 90 d | Compare |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | JSONEcma International | 6,396 | 365% | 19,737 | gRPC vs JSON → | |
| 2 | XMLW3C | 5,264 | 300% | 12,841 | gRPC vs XML → | |
| 3 | Model Context ProtocolAnthropic | 4,892 | 279% | 16,002 | gRPC vs Model Context Protocol → | |
| 4 | GraphQLGraphQL Foundation | 4,089 | 233% | 12,076 | gRPC vs GraphQL → | |
| 5 | SOAPW3C | 3,661 | 209% | 10,243 | gRPC vs SOAP → | |
| 6 | OpenAPIOpenAPI Initiative | 1,432 | 82% | 3,245 | gRPC vs OpenAPI → | |
| 7 | YAMLYAML Language Development Team | 1,029 | 59% | 2,569 | gRPC vs YAML → | |
| 8 | Microsoft GraphMicrosoft | 942 | 54% | 2,115 | gRPC vs Microsoft Graph → | |
| 9 | ODataOASIS | 844 | 48% | 3,073 | gRPC vs OData → | |
| 10 | XSLTW3C | 820 | 47% | 1,501 | gRPC vs XSLT → | |
| 11 | CSVIETF | 782 | 45% | 1,180 | gRPC vs CSV → | |
| 12 | SAP IDocSAP | 722 | 41% | 2,746 | gRPC vs SAP IDoc → | |
| 13 | Apache ParquetApache Software Foundation | 690 | 39% | 1,246 | gRPC vs Apache Parquet → | |
| 14 | Protocol BuffersGoogle | 566 | 32% | 1,102 | gRPC vs Protocol Buffers → | |
| 15 | Agent2Agent (A2A) ProtocolLinux Foundation | 443 | 25% | 1,572 | gRPC vs Agent2Agent (A2A) Protocol → | |
| 16 | PDFAdobe | 405 | 23% | 839 | gRPC vs PDF → | |
| 17 | ANSI X12ASC X12 | 371 | 21% | 761 | gRPC vs ANSI X12 → | |
| 18 | 337 | 19% | 585 | gRPC vs Markdown → | ||
| 19 | 291 | 17% | 551 | gRPC vs XML Schema (XSD) → | ||
| 20 | Apache AvroApache Software Foundation | 280 | 16% | 560 | gRPC vs Apache Avro → | |
| 21 | ISO 20022ISO | 272 | 16% | 763 | gRPC vs ISO 20022 → | |
| 22 | WSDLW3C | 256 | 15% | 511 | gRPC vs WSDL → | |
| 23 | UN/EDIFACTUnited Nations | 253 | 14% | 406 | gRPC vs UN/EDIFACT → | |
| 24 | RDFW3C | 221 | 13% | 813 | gRPC vs RDF → | |
| 25 | 216 | 12% | 703 | gRPC vs Web Ontology Language → | ||
| 26 | JSON SchemaJSON Schema organization | 169 | 10% | 301 | gRPC vs JSON Schema → | |
| 27 | H.264ITU-T / ISO | 160 | 9% | 327 | gRPC vs H.264 → | |
| 28 | XBRLXBRL International | 152 | 9% | 294 | gRPC vs XBRL → | |
| 29 | RedfishDMTF | 137 | 8% | 661 | gRPC vs Redfish → | |
| 30 | H.265ITU-T | 126 | 7% | 244 | soon | |
| 31 | RSSRSS Advisory Board | 122 | 7% | 321 | soon | |
| 32 | Apache ORCApache Software Foundation | 118 | 7% | 235 | soon | |
| 33 | tRPCtRPC contributors | 106 | 6% | 188 | soon | |
| 34 | RAMLMuleSoft | 105 | 6% | 187 | soon | |
| 35 | Schema.orgSchema.org | 103 | 6% | 148 | soon | |
| 36 | JSON-LDW3C | 99 | 6% | 146 | soon | |
| 37 | DITAOASIS | 96 | 5% | 197 | soon | |
| 38 | YANGIETF | 89 | 5% | 286 | soon | |
| 39 | OpenUSDAlliance for OpenUSD | 88 | 5% | 291 | soon |
Filter on any of them, or on gRPC users who also name an alternative, and open the person who owns the stack.
Free plan: 1,000 records, no card. The first 20 are above; e-mails are verified at the mail server when you open them.
Quote the sentence with the date and the link. The numbers change daily; the link always shows the current ones.
39 api specs data formats are named by companies instead of gRPC: JSON by 6,396 companies, XML by 5,264, Model Context Protocol by 4,892, measured from their own job postings. (Breaknorm, 4 November 2026, https://breaknorm.co/tools/grpc/alternatives)
Read from the source, not self-reported
Every number on this page can be traced to a page we crawled or a posting we read. Full methodology →
- RankingCompanies whose own postings name the tool as the team's system, from the Breaknorm technology catalogue T-1.0.1-prov. Editions are folded into their parent product.
- 90-day postingsOpen postings first seen or posted in the last 90 days that name the tool.
- Not includedRatings, prices, feature claims, sponsored positions.
gRPC alternatives: questions
What is the most used alternative to gRPC?
JSON: 6,396 companies name it in their own job postings, against 1,753 for gRPC.
How is this list ranked?
By the number of companies whose own postings name the tool as the team's system (Breaknorm technology catalogue T-1.0.1-prov), then by postings in the last 90 days. No ratings, no vendor input, no sponsored positions.
Does this say which is better?
No. It says who uses what, by company size, industry and country, so you can see which tools companies like yours choose. For features and prices, read the vendors.
Can I get the companies on any of these?
Yes: click the tool, see the first 20 companies, and sign up for the full list with verified e-mails. Counting is free.
Get these companies your way
The same data as a search, over MCP and the API, as bulk files, or pushed to you as it changes.
Every company on gRPC
or on what replaces it
Connect the MCP server, filter on any tool, and get 1,000 records free.