CSV versus XML versus JSON – Which is the Best Response Data Format?

Whether you are building a slim customer (web application) or thick (customer server application) eventually you are most likely making solicitations to a web server and need a decent information design for reactions. Starting today, there are three significant information groups being utilized to transmit information from a web server to a customer: CSV, XML, and JSON. So as to build up an application with a strong design, it’s a smart thought to comprehend the contrasts between each configuration and realize when to utilize them. The motivation behind this post is to characterize every datum position, spread out the advantages and disadvantages for each, and find which circumstances work best with each format.


CSV means “comma isolated qualities”. As the name suggests, this information group is essentially a rundown of components isolated by commas. Suppose that your reaction is sending back a rundown of individuals in a specific family. The configuration would look like this:


Pros – This arrangement is the most conservative of every one of the three organizations. As a rule, CSV positions are about a large portion of the size of XML and JSON designs. This is the significant preferred position of CSV in light of the fact that it can help lessen bandwidth

Cons – This organization is the least adaptable of every one of the three arrangements. This is on the grounds that a hand crafted parser is required to change over the CSV information into a local information structure. Subsequently, if the information structure changes, there is a related overhead of changing or even update your parsers. Besides, since the program making the CSV and the program parsing the CSV live on various machines (recall that we are passing information starting with one machine then onto the next) at that point the two projects must be refreshed at the same time to forestall the accepting system to crash. Something else, a blackout is required to refresh the two projects exclusively to forestall inconsistency issues.

Finally, CSV doesn’t generally bolster information chains of importance. Imagine a scenario where you needed to send back traits for every individual in every family. You would then need to plan an intricate parser that realizes which parts of the CSV are alluding to components of a family, and which parts are alluding to components of every individual. One approach to take care of this issue is to utilize another delimiter like “;” to isolate every individual’s attribute:


The issue with making altered arrangements, be that as it may, is that you acquire an overhead of keeping up a considerably increasingly complex parser.


XML means “extensible markup language”. XML was planned in 1996 and authoritatively turned into a W3C standard in 1998. It was made to all the more likely speak to information groups with a various leveled structure. The arrangement looks like this:

</p> <person> <p><name> </p> <p>Eric </p> <p></name> </p> <p><age> </p> <p>26 </p> <p></age> </p> </person> <person> <p><name> </p> <p>Andrea </p> <p></name> </p> <p><age> </p> <p>26 </p> <p></age> </p> </person> <person> <p><name> </p> <p>Kusco </p> <p></name> </p> <p><age> </p> <p>8 </p> <p></age> </p> </person> <p>

Pros – This information design completely underpins various leveled information structures and is exceptionally suitable while getting perplexing information as a reaction. It is additionally extremely intelligible. Most programs have worked in XML perusers that permit you to review XML records. Since XML was the main standard various leveled information position, most APIs have worked in usefulness to naturally change over XML information streams into local information structures like objects.

Cons – This information design is around multiple times as extensive as CSV. This is on the grounds that every datum component has a related open and close parameter tag.


JSON represents (Javascript Object Notation). It was created in 2001 and became advanced by Yahoo and Google in 2005 and 2006. It was made as an option to XML. Like XML, be that as it may, it speaks to progressive information with the utilization of commas, wavy supports and sections. A case of JSON looks like this:




Pros – This information design underpins various leveled information while being littler in size than XML. As its name suggests, it was likewise made to all the more effectively parse information into local Javascript objects, making it valuable for web applications. JSON is the best of the two universes regarding CSV and XML. It’s straightforward and smaller like CSV, yet underpins various leveled information like XML. Dissimilar to XML, JSON designs are just about twice as extensive as CSV formats.

Cons – This information position has somewhat less help than XML. Since JSON is moderately more current than XML, less APIs exist to consequently change over JSON to local information structures. Be that as it may, this is quickly changing in light of the fact that more up to date APIs and modules are supporting both XML and JSON.


As a general dependable guideline, JSON is the best information trade configuration to date. It’s light weight, conservative, and flexible. CSV should possibly be utilized in the event that you are sending immense measures of information and if transfer speed is an issue. Today, XML ought not be utilized as an information trade design since it’s more qualified for report markups.