System Design (HLD)Server-Sent Events (SSE)

Server-Sent Events (SSE)

LevelIntermediate

Duration60 mins

TopicServer-Sent Events (SSE)

2 / 5

SSE vs WebSocket

Choosing the Right Real-Time Technology

When architects design real-time systems, they inevitably face a fundamental choice: Server-Sent Events or WebSockets? Both technologies enable real-time communication between servers and clients, but they differ significantly in architecture, capabilities, and operational characteristics.\n\nThis decision is not merely technical—it affects scalability, operational complexity, infrastructure costs, and development velocity. Choosing incorrectly can lead to over-engineered solutions that waste resources, or under-powered implementations that fail to meet requirements.

What You Will Learn

By the end of this page, you will understand the fundamental architectural differences between SSE and WebSockets, their respective strengths and weaknesses, performance characteristics at scale, infrastructure requirements, and a decision framework for choosing between them in production systems.

Fundamental Architectural Differences

Understanding the architectural foundations of SSE and WebSockets is essential for making informed decisions. Despite both enabling real-time communication, they operate on fundamentally different principles.\n\nSSE: HTTP-Based Streaming\n\nServer-Sent Events operate entirely within the HTTP protocol. A client makes a standard HTTP request, and the server responds with a never-ending stream of text data. The connection remains open, but it's still essentially HTTP—unidirectional, text-based, and compatible with all standard HTTP infrastructure.\n\nWebSocket: Full-Duplex Protocol\n\nWebSockets start as HTTP but immediately upgrade to a completely different protocol. After the handshake, communication is bidirectional, binary-capable, and operates outside normal HTTP semantics. It's a raw TCP connection with a thin framing layer.

Converting Mermaid diagram...

Architectural Comparison
Aspect	SSE	WebSocket
Base Protocol	HTTP/1.1 or HTTP/2	Custom protocol over TCP
Direction	Server → Client only	Bidirectional (full-duplex)
Data Format	Text only (UTF-8)	Text and binary frames
Connection Model	Long-lived HTTP response	Persistent TCP connection
Request Semantics	Standard HTTP GET	Protocol upgrade, then custom framing
Default Port	80/443 (HTTP/HTTPS)	80/443 (via HTTP upgrade)
Browser API	EventSource	WebSocket
Automatic Reconnection	Built-in	Manual implementation required

Protocol Evolution

SSE benefits significantly from HTTP/2, which provides multiplexed streams over a single connection. This eliminates the browser connection limit issue that affected HTTP/1.1 SSE implementations (limited to ~6 connections per domain). Modern SSE over HTTP/2 can handle many more concurrent streams efficiently.

Protocol Mechanics Comparison

The protocol-level differences between SSE and WebSockets have profound implications for implementation, debugging, and operations.\n\nSSE Protocol Structure\n\nSSE uses a simple, human-readable text format:

Protocol Comparison

GET /events HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Accept: text/event-stream
Cache-Control: no-cache
 
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: text/event-stream
Cache-Control: no-cache
Connection: keep-alive
 
: comment for keep-alive
id: 1
event: message
data: {"user": "alice", "text": "Hello!"}
 
id: 2
event: message  
data: {"user": "bob", "text": "Hi there!"}
 
: Events are plain text, easily inspectable
: No binary encoding, no complex framing

Operational Implications\n\nThese protocol differences create distinct operational characteristics:

SSE Advantages

•Debuggable with curl — curl -N example.com/events shows live stream
•Standard HTTP tools — Works with Postman, browser dev tools, all HTTP debugging proxies
•No special server requirements — Any HTTP server can stream responses
•Proxy-friendly — Most proxies handle HTTP streaming correctly
•Simpler security model — Standard HTTP auth, cookies, CORS all apply
•HTTP/2 multiplexing — Multiple streams share one TCP connection

WebSocket Advantages

•Bidirectional — Client can send anytime without new request
•Binary data native — Efficient for images, audio, binary protocols
•Lower overhead per message — 2-14 bytes vs HTTP headers
•Ping/pong heartbeat — Protocol-level connection health check
•Subprotocol negotiation — Built-in extension mechanism
•Lower latency potential — No HTTP parsing overhead on each message

Debugging Reality

The ability to debug SSE with standard tools is often undervalued. When production issues occur at 3 AM, being able to curl your stream endpoint and immediately see events (or lack thereof) dramatically reduces mean-time-to-resolution compared to needing specialized WebSocket debugging tools.

Performance Characteristics at Scale

Performance is often cited as the primary reason to choose WebSockets over SSE. However, the reality is nuanced—the "right" choice depends heavily on your specific workload patterns.\n\nConnection Overhead\n\nBoth technologies maintain persistent connections, but their overhead differs:

Connection and Message Overhead
Metric	SSE	WebSocket	Notes
Connection establishment	~1-2 RTT (HTTP)	~2-3 RTT (Upgrade)	HTTP/2 eliminates separate connection for SSE
Typical header overhead/message	0 bytes (headers sent once)	2-14 bytes (frame header)	SSE streams on existing response
Keep-alive ping	Comment line (~2 bytes)	Ping frame (~2-6 bytes)	Similar, but WS ping is protocol-defined
Message framing	Newline-delimited text	Binary length-prefixed	WS more efficient for binary
Memory per connection	HTTP context (~8-20KB)	WS context (~4-10KB)	Varies significantly by implementation

Throughput Analysis\n\nFor high-throughput scenarios, the choice matters more:

Throughput Comparison

Analysis

Scenario: Broadcasting 1000 messages/second to 10,000 clients
 
=== SSE Overhead ===
Per message: ~50 bytes average (event: type\ndata: {json}\n\n)
Total bandwidth: 1000 × 10000 × 50 = 500 MB/second
No per-message request overhead (single response stream)
 
=== WebSocket Overhead ===
Per message: ~40 bytes average (2-byte header + JSON payload)
Total bandwidth: 1000 × 10000 × 40 = 400 MB/second  
Plus: client→server heartbeat responses
 
=== Real-World Factors ===
1. JSON payload typically dominates overhead (>90% of message size)
2. Network latency matters more than frame overhead
3. Compression (deflate-frame for WS, http compression for SSE) changes calculations
4. CPU for JSON parsing dominates CPU cost, not framing
 
Conclusion: For typical JSON payloads (100+ bytes), overhead difference is <10%.
Binary payloads or extremely high message rates favor WebSocket.

Scalability Considerations\n\nAt massive scale, different factors become dominant:

Scale-Specific Trade-offs

•Connection Limits — OS-level limits (file descriptors, ports) apply equally to both technologies. SSE over HTTP/2 can multiplex streams, potentially reducing connection count.
•Load Balancer Affinity — WebSocket's stateful nature requires session stickiness or sophisticated routing. SSE can leverage standard HTTP load balancing (though reconnection needs consideration).
•Horizontal Scaling — Publishing events to multiple server instances is identical for both. The challenge is message distribution, not the client protocol.
•Memory Footprint — With careful implementation, WebSocket can be lighter per-connection. But difference is typically <50% and often overshadowed by application state.
•CPU Utilization — Message parsing (JSON) dominates. Frame overhead parsing is negligible compared to application-level processing.

Premature Optimization Warning

Many teams choose WebSocket for 'performance' without measuring their actual workload. For most applications sending JSON payloads at <100 messages/second, SSE's operational simplicity provides more value than WebSocket's marginal efficiency gains. Measure before optimizing.

Infrastructure and Operations

The infrastructure requirements for SSE versus WebSocket differ substantially, affecting deployment complexity, cost, and operational burden.\n\nProxy and Load Balancer Compatibility

Infrastructure Compatibility
Component	SSE Support	WebSocket Support
Nginx	Native (disable buffering)	Native (needs upgrade headers)
AWS ALB	Native HTTP streaming	Native, with idle timeout config
AWS CloudFront	Supported (streaming)	Supported (WebSocket forwarding)
Cloudflare	Native with streaming	Native with configuration
HAProxy	Native HTTP	Requires websocket mode
Corporate Proxies	Usually work (standard HTTP)	Often blocked or terminated
Mobile Carriers	Generally transparent	May be problematic (non-HTTP)

Corporate and Mobile Network Challenges\n\nIn enterprise environments and mobile networks, SSE has a significant advantage:

Network Reality

Real-World Challenges

=== Corporate Proxy Scenario ===
User behind enterprise proxy (BlueCoat, Zscaler, etc.)
 
SSE Request:
→ GET /events HTTP/1.1 (standard HTTP)
→ Proxy: "This is normal HTTP, forward it"
→ Response streams through successfully
 
WebSocket Request:
→ GET /chat HTTP/1.1 + Upgrade: websocket
→ Proxy: "Unknown protocol upgrade? BLOCK."
→ Connection fails, user can't use feature
 
=== Mobile Carrier Scenario ===
User on cellular network with carrier-grade NAT
 
SSE:
→ Standard HTTPS stream
→ NAT recognizes HTTP, maintains session
→ May terminate after long idle (solve with comments)
 
WebSocket:
→ Protocol looks like raw TCP to carrier
→ Aggressive timeout (30-60 seconds common)
→ Connection drops frequently
→ Requires aggressive ping/pong (extra battery drain)
 
=== Bottom Line ===
SSE works in ~99% of network environments
WebSocket works in ~85-95% depending on user base

Server Configuration Differences

Server Configuration

# SSE Configuration - Minimal changes needed
location /events {
    proxy_pass http://backend;
    
    # Disable buffering for streaming
    proxy_buffering off;
    proxy_cache off;
    
    # Allow long-lived connections  
    proxy_read_timeout 86400s;
    proxy_send_timeout 86400s;
    
    # Standard HTTP headers work
    proxy_set_header Host $host;
    proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr;
}

Ops Team Perspective

From an operations standpoint, SSE is 'just HTTP'—it works with existing monitoring, logging, and debugging tools. WebSocket requires specialized handling. If your organization has mature HTTP infrastructure, SSE leverages that investment. If you're building greenfield with WebSocket expertise, the gap is smaller.

Browser Support and Client APIs

Both technologies have mature browser support, but their client-side APIs differ significantly in features and developer experience.\n\nBrowser Support Matrix

Browser Support (as of 2024)
Browser	SSE (EventSource)	WebSocket	Notes
Chrome	✅ 6+	✅ 4+	Full support in all modern versions
Firefox	✅ 6+	✅ 11+	Full support in all modern versions
Safari	✅ 5+	✅ 5+	Full support including iOS
Edge	✅ 79+	✅ 12+	EdgeHTML lacked SSE, Chromium Edge supports it
IE 11	❌ No support	✅ 10+	SSE requires polyfill for legacy IE
Node.js	Via packages	Via packages	No native EventSource; ws package popular for WS

API Comparison\n\nThe client APIs reflect the different design philosophies:

Client API Comparison

// SSE: Simple, high-level API
const events = new EventSource('/api/events');
 
// Built-in event handling
events.onmessage = (e) => console.log('Message:', e.data);
events.onerror = (e) => console.log('Error, will auto-reconnect');
events.onopen = () => console.log('Connected');
 
// Named events
events.addEventListener('notification', (e) => {
    const data = JSON.parse(e.data);
    showNotification(data);
});
 
// Automatic features:
// ✅ Reconnection with exponential backoff
// ✅ Last-Event-ID tracking
// ✅ Event type dispatching
// ✅ CORS handling
// ✅ Connection state management
 
// Limitations:
// ❌ No custom headers (use query params or cookies)
// ❌ No binary data
// ❌ No client-to-server messaging
 
// To send data, use regular fetch:
fetch('/api/action', { method: 'POST', body: JSON.stringify(data) });

Library Ecosystem

The WebSocket ecosystem has developed robust client libraries (Socket.IO, SockJS) that add reconnection, fallbacks, and higher-level abstractions. However, these libraries add complexity and bundle size. SSE's native browser API provides production-ready features out of the box, without additional dependencies.

Decision Framework

With a comprehensive understanding of both technologies, we can establish a clear decision framework. The choice should be driven by requirements, not assumptions.\n\nChoose SSE When:

SSE Is the Right Choice

•Server-to-client only — Notifications, feeds, dashboards, live scores. Client actions use regular HTTP.
•Text/JSON payloads — No need for binary data transmission.
•Maximum compatibility — Must work through corporate proxies, mobile networks, legacy infrastructure.
•Simpler operations — Want to leverage existing HTTP monitoring, logging, and debugging tools.
•Automatic reconnection — Need reliable recovery from network interruptions without custom code.
•HTTP/2 environment — Can multiplex many streams over single connection.
•Faster development — Want production-ready client without libraries or boilerplate.

Choose WebSocket When:

WebSocket Is the Right Choice

•Bidirectional communication — Chat, collaborative editing, multiplayer games. Both sides send frequently.
•Binary data — Audio/video streaming, file transfers, custom binary protocols.
•Ultra-low latency — Gaming, trading, where microseconds matter more than operational simplicity.
•High message frequency — Thousands of messages per second where frame overhead adds up.
•Custom protocols — Building something not well-served by text event streams.
•Existing WebSocket expertise — Team experienced with WebSocket operations and tooling.

Common Mistake: Choosing WebSocket By Default\n\nMany teams default to WebSocket without analyzing requirements. Consider a typical notification system:

WebSocket Approach

•Need Socket.IO or custom reconnection
•Configure WebSocket-aware load balancers
•Implement heartbeat mechanism
•Build event type dispatching
•Debug with specialized tools
•Handle corporate proxy issues
•Manage binary/text mode

SSE Approach

•Native EventSource API, zero dependencies
•Standard HTTP load balancing
•Server comment every 30s for keep-alive
•Built-in event type handling
•Debug with curl or browser dev tools
•Works through all proxies
•Text format fits JSON perfectly

The Hybrid Approach

Many successful applications use both technologies strategically. SSE handles notifications, live feeds, and dashboard updates (80% of real-time needs). WebSocket is reserved for specific features requiring bidirectional communication, like chat or collaborative editing. This approach optimizes for simplicity where possible while enabling advanced capabilities where needed.

Summary: SSE vs WebSocket

We've conducted a comprehensive comparison of Server-Sent Events and WebSockets. Let's consolidate the key insights:

Key Takeaways

•Architecture differs fundamentally — SSE is HTTP streaming; WebSocket is a separate protocol. Each has distinct operational characteristics.
•SSE is simpler — Native browser API with automatic reconnection, standard HTTP infrastructure, debuggable with curl.
•WebSocket is more capable — Bidirectional, binary support, lower per-message overhead when that matters.
•Performance differences are often overstated — For JSON payloads at moderate rates, the difference is minimal.
•Infrastructure compatibility favors SSE — Corporate proxies, mobile networks, and legacy systems handle HTTP better.
•Choose based on requirements — If bidirectional or binary isn't needed, SSE's simplicity wins.
•Hybrid architectures work well — Use SSE for push, HTTP for actions, WebSocket only where truly needed.

What's Next:\n\nNow that we understand how SSE compares to WebSocket, we'll explore browser support in depth—including polyfills for legacy environments, mobile considerations, and cross-browser testing strategies.

Page Complete

You can now make informed decisions between SSE and WebSocket based on actual requirements. You understand the protocol differences, performance trade-offs, infrastructure implications, and when each technology is the better choice. Next, we'll dive deep into browser support considerations.

2 / 5

Loading learning content...

System Design (HLD)Server-Sent Events (SSE)

Server-Sent Events (SSE)

LevelIntermediate

Duration60 mins

TopicServer-Sent Events (SSE)

2 / 5

SSE vs WebSocket

Choosing the Right Real-Time Technology

What You Will Learn

Fundamental Architectural Differences

Converting Mermaid diagram...

Architectural Comparison
Aspect	SSE	WebSocket
Base Protocol	HTTP/1.1 or HTTP/2	Custom protocol over TCP
Direction	Server → Client only	Bidirectional (full-duplex)
Data Format	Text only (UTF-8)	Text and binary frames
Connection Model	Long-lived HTTP response	Persistent TCP connection
Request Semantics	Standard HTTP GET	Protocol upgrade, then custom framing
Default Port	80/443 (HTTP/HTTPS)	80/443 (via HTTP upgrade)
Browser API	EventSource	WebSocket
Automatic Reconnection	Built-in	Manual implementation required

Protocol Evolution

Protocol Mechanics Comparison

Protocol Comparison

GET /events HTTP/1.1
Host: example.com
Accept: text/event-stream
Cache-Control: no-cache
 
HTTP/1.1 200 OK
Content-Type: text/event-stream
Cache-Control: no-cache
Connection: keep-alive
 
: comment for keep-alive
id: 1
event: message
data: {"user": "alice", "text": "Hello!"}
 
id: 2
event: message  
data: {"user": "bob", "text": "Hi there!"}
 
: Events are plain text, easily inspectable
: No binary encoding, no complex framing

Operational Implications\n\nThese protocol differences create distinct operational characteristics:

SSE Advantages

•Debuggable with curl — curl -N example.com/events shows live stream
•Standard HTTP tools — Works with Postman, browser dev tools, all HTTP debugging proxies
•No special server requirements — Any HTTP server can stream responses
•Proxy-friendly — Most proxies handle HTTP streaming correctly
•Simpler security model — Standard HTTP auth, cookies, CORS all apply
•HTTP/2 multiplexing — Multiple streams share one TCP connection

WebSocket Advantages

•Bidirectional — Client can send anytime without new request
•Binary data native — Efficient for images, audio, binary protocols
•Lower overhead per message — 2-14 bytes vs HTTP headers
•Ping/pong heartbeat — Protocol-level connection health check
•Subprotocol negotiation — Built-in extension mechanism
•Lower latency potential — No HTTP parsing overhead on each message

Debugging Reality

Performance Characteristics at Scale

Connection and Message Overhead
Metric	SSE	WebSocket	Notes
Connection establishment	~1-2 RTT (HTTP)	~2-3 RTT (Upgrade)	HTTP/2 eliminates separate connection for SSE
Typical header overhead/message	0 bytes (headers sent once)	2-14 bytes (frame header)	SSE streams on existing response
Keep-alive ping	Comment line (~2 bytes)	Ping frame (~2-6 bytes)	Similar, but WS ping is protocol-defined
Message framing	Newline-delimited text	Binary length-prefixed	WS more efficient for binary
Memory per connection	HTTP context (~8-20KB)	WS context (~4-10KB)	Varies significantly by implementation

Throughput Analysis\n\nFor high-throughput scenarios, the choice matters more:

Throughput Comparison

Analysis

Scenario: Broadcasting 1000 messages/second to 10,000 clients
 
=== SSE Overhead ===
Per message: ~50 bytes average (event: type\ndata: {json}\n\n)
Total bandwidth: 1000 × 10000 × 50 = 500 MB/second
No per-message request overhead (single response stream)
 
=== WebSocket Overhead ===
Per message: ~40 bytes average (2-byte header + JSON payload)
Total bandwidth: 1000 × 10000 × 40 = 400 MB/second  
Plus: client→server heartbeat responses
 
=== Real-World Factors ===
1. JSON payload typically dominates overhead (>90% of message size)
2. Network latency matters more than frame overhead
3. Compression (deflate-frame for WS, http compression for SSE) changes calculations
4. CPU for JSON parsing dominates CPU cost, not framing
 
Conclusion: For typical JSON payloads (100+ bytes), overhead difference is <10%.
Binary payloads or extremely high message rates favor WebSocket.

Scalability Considerations\n\nAt massive scale, different factors become dominant:

Scale-Specific Trade-offs

•Connection Limits — OS-level limits (file descriptors, ports) apply equally to both technologies. SSE over HTTP/2 can multiplex streams, potentially reducing connection count.
•Load Balancer Affinity — WebSocket's stateful nature requires session stickiness or sophisticated routing. SSE can leverage standard HTTP load balancing (though reconnection needs consideration).
•Horizontal Scaling — Publishing events to multiple server instances is identical for both. The challenge is message distribution, not the client protocol.
•Memory Footprint — With careful implementation, WebSocket can be lighter per-connection. But difference is typically <50% and often overshadowed by application state.
•CPU Utilization — Message parsing (JSON) dominates. Frame overhead parsing is negligible compared to application-level processing.

Premature Optimization Warning

Infrastructure and Operations

The infrastructure requirements for SSE versus WebSocket differ substantially, affecting deployment complexity, cost, and operational burden.\n\nProxy and Load Balancer Compatibility

Infrastructure Compatibility
Component	SSE Support	WebSocket Support
Nginx	Native (disable buffering)	Native (needs upgrade headers)
AWS ALB	Native HTTP streaming	Native, with idle timeout config
AWS CloudFront	Supported (streaming)	Supported (WebSocket forwarding)
Cloudflare	Native with streaming	Native with configuration
HAProxy	Native HTTP	Requires websocket mode
Corporate Proxies	Usually work (standard HTTP)	Often blocked or terminated
Mobile Carriers	Generally transparent	May be problematic (non-HTTP)

Corporate and Mobile Network Challenges\n\nIn enterprise environments and mobile networks, SSE has a significant advantage:

Network Reality

Real-World Challenges

=== Corporate Proxy Scenario ===
User behind enterprise proxy (BlueCoat, Zscaler, etc.)
 
SSE Request:
→ GET /events HTTP/1.1 (standard HTTP)
→ Proxy: "This is normal HTTP, forward it"
→ Response streams through successfully
 
WebSocket Request:
→ GET /chat HTTP/1.1 + Upgrade: websocket
→ Proxy: "Unknown protocol upgrade? BLOCK."
→ Connection fails, user can't use feature
 
=== Mobile Carrier Scenario ===
User on cellular network with carrier-grade NAT
 
SSE:
→ Standard HTTPS stream
→ NAT recognizes HTTP, maintains session
→ May terminate after long idle (solve with comments)
 
WebSocket:
→ Protocol looks like raw TCP to carrier
→ Aggressive timeout (30-60 seconds common)
→ Connection drops frequently
→ Requires aggressive ping/pong (extra battery drain)
 
=== Bottom Line ===
SSE works in ~99% of network environments
WebSocket works in ~85-95% depending on user base

Server Configuration Differences

Server Configuration

# SSE Configuration - Minimal changes needed
location /events {
    proxy_pass http://backend;
    
    # Disable buffering for streaming
    proxy_buffering off;
    proxy_cache off;
    
    # Allow long-lived connections  
    proxy_read_timeout 86400s;
    proxy_send_timeout 86400s;
    
    # Standard HTTP headers work
    proxy_set_header Host $host;
    proxy_set_header X-Real-IP $remote_addr;
}

Ops Team Perspective

Browser Support and Client APIs

Both technologies have mature browser support, but their client-side APIs differ significantly in features and developer experience.\n\nBrowser Support Matrix

Browser Support (as of 2024)
Browser	SSE (EventSource)	WebSocket	Notes
Chrome	✅ 6+	✅ 4+	Full support in all modern versions
Firefox	✅ 6+	✅ 11+	Full support in all modern versions
Safari	✅ 5+	✅ 5+	Full support including iOS
Edge	✅ 79+	✅ 12+	EdgeHTML lacked SSE, Chromium Edge supports it
IE 11	❌ No support	✅ 10+	SSE requires polyfill for legacy IE
Node.js	Via packages	Via packages	No native EventSource; ws package popular for WS

API Comparison\n\nThe client APIs reflect the different design philosophies:

Client API Comparison

// SSE: Simple, high-level API
const events = new EventSource('/api/events');
 
// Built-in event handling
events.onmessage = (e) => console.log('Message:', e.data);
events.onerror = (e) => console.log('Error, will auto-reconnect');
events.onopen = () => console.log('Connected');
 
// Named events
events.addEventListener('notification', (e) => {
    const data = JSON.parse(e.data);
    showNotification(data);
});
 
// Automatic features:
// ✅ Reconnection with exponential backoff
// ✅ Last-Event-ID tracking
// ✅ Event type dispatching
// ✅ CORS handling
// ✅ Connection state management
 
// Limitations:
// ❌ No custom headers (use query params or cookies)
// ❌ No binary data
// ❌ No client-to-server messaging
 
// To send data, use regular fetch:
fetch('/api/action', { method: 'POST', body: JSON.stringify(data) });

Library Ecosystem

Decision Framework

With a comprehensive understanding of both technologies, we can establish a clear decision framework. The choice should be driven by requirements, not assumptions.\n\nChoose SSE When:

SSE Is the Right Choice

•Server-to-client only — Notifications, feeds, dashboards, live scores. Client actions use regular HTTP.
•Text/JSON payloads — No need for binary data transmission.
•Maximum compatibility — Must work through corporate proxies, mobile networks, legacy infrastructure.
•Simpler operations — Want to leverage existing HTTP monitoring, logging, and debugging tools.
•Automatic reconnection — Need reliable recovery from network interruptions without custom code.
•HTTP/2 environment — Can multiplex many streams over single connection.
•Faster development — Want production-ready client without libraries or boilerplate.

Choose WebSocket When:

WebSocket Is the Right Choice

•Bidirectional communication — Chat, collaborative editing, multiplayer games. Both sides send frequently.
•Binary data — Audio/video streaming, file transfers, custom binary protocols.
•Ultra-low latency — Gaming, trading, where microseconds matter more than operational simplicity.
•High message frequency — Thousands of messages per second where frame overhead adds up.
•Custom protocols — Building something not well-served by text event streams.
•Existing WebSocket expertise — Team experienced with WebSocket operations and tooling.

Common Mistake: Choosing WebSocket By Default\n\nMany teams default to WebSocket without analyzing requirements. Consider a typical notification system:

WebSocket Approach

•Need Socket.IO or custom reconnection
•Configure WebSocket-aware load balancers
•Implement heartbeat mechanism
•Build event type dispatching
•Debug with specialized tools
•Handle corporate proxy issues
•Manage binary/text mode

SSE Approach

•Native EventSource API, zero dependencies
•Standard HTTP load balancing
•Server comment every 30s for keep-alive
•Built-in event type handling
•Debug with curl or browser dev tools
•Works through all proxies
•Text format fits JSON perfectly

The Hybrid Approach

Summary: SSE vs WebSocket

We've conducted a comprehensive comparison of Server-Sent Events and WebSockets. Let's consolidate the key insights:

Key Takeaways

•Architecture differs fundamentally — SSE is HTTP streaming; WebSocket is a separate protocol. Each has distinct operational characteristics.
•SSE is simpler — Native browser API with automatic reconnection, standard HTTP infrastructure, debuggable with curl.
•WebSocket is more capable — Bidirectional, binary support, lower per-message overhead when that matters.
•Performance differences are often overstated — For JSON payloads at moderate rates, the difference is minimal.
•Infrastructure compatibility favors SSE — Corporate proxies, mobile networks, and legacy systems handle HTTP better.
•Choose based on requirements — If bidirectional or binary isn't needed, SSE's simplicity wins.
•Hybrid architectures work well — Use SSE for push, HTTP for actions, WebSocket only where truly needed.

Page Complete

2 / 5