Comparative Analysis: oRPC vs. trpc and Other Alternatives

You've set up your TypeScript project and need a robust, typesafe API solution. But as you sift through the options like tRPC, ts-rest, and Zodios, you find yourself drowning in documentation, wondering which one will actually simplify your development process without sacrificing functionality.

Hours later, you're still weighing complex setup procedures, missing features, and workarounds for file uploads. The frustration of choosing the wrong tool and having to refactor your entire codebase later looms large.

The TypeScript API Tool Landscape

The modern TypeScript ecosystem offers several approaches to building typesafe APIs, each with their own philosophy and tradeoffs. As developers increasingly seek efficient solutions that reduce boilerplate while maintaining type safety, new contenders have emerged to address the limitations of existing tools.

One such solution is oRPC, an open-source, end-to-end typesafe API builder designed specifically for TypeScript developers. Positioned as a drop-in replacement for popular tools like tRPC, ts-rest, and Zodios, oRPC aims to simplify API development while offering a comprehensive feature set.

But before making the switch to any new tool, developers naturally want to understand how it compares to established alternatives. As one developer on Reddit asked, "Do you have a comparison table with trpc?" This sentiment reflects a common desire for clear, side-by-side analysis to inform decision-making.

Understanding oRPC: Key Features and Capabilities

oRPC distinguishes itself through several core features that address common pain points in API development:

Typesafe Functions with Minimal Boilerplate

Unlike some alternatives that require extensive configuration, oRPC allows developers to create high-quality typesafe functions with significantly less boilerplate code. This streamlined approach helps maintain clean codebases while ensuring type safety throughout your application.

Seamless Next.js Integration

For Next.js developers, oRPC offers native integration with Server Actions, providing a smooth development experience and simple API exposure. This makes it particularly attractive for projects already using or planning to use Next.js.

Built-in File Upload/Download Support

A standout feature of oRPC is its built-in support for file handling:

// Server-side definition
export const uploadFile = procedure
  .input(z.object({ file: z.instanceof(File) }))
  .output(z.string())
  .handler(async ({ input }) => {
    // Handle file upload logic
    return "File uploaded successfully";
  });

This eliminates the need for external libraries or complex workarounds that many developers face when using tRPC or other solutions.

Flexible API Exposure Options

oRPC supports both fully typed clients and OpenAPI standard compliance, enhancing usability across different project requirements. This flexibility allows teams to choose the approach that best fits their specific needs.

Integration with TanStack Query

The built-in integration with TanStack Query simplifies client-side data fetching and caching, providing a more efficient development experience:

// Client-side usage with TanStack Query
const { data, isLoading } = api.users.getUser.useQuery({ id: 123 });

Contract-First Development

oRPC embraces a contract-first approach to API design, ensuring reliability and maintainability through structured development practices. This methodology helps teams establish clear interfaces before implementation, reducing inconsistencies and integration issues.

Modern Environment Support

With compatibility for Node.js, Bun, Deno, and serverless infrastructures, oRPC caters to diverse project requirements and modern development environments. This flexibility makes it suitable for a wide range of applications and deployment scenarios.

Head-to-Head Comparison: oRPC vs. tRPC

To address the common request for a direct comparison, let's examine how oRPC stacks up against tRPC, one of the most popular typesafe API solutions in the TypeScript ecosystem.

Feature Comparison Table

Simplicity vs. Complexity

One of the most significant differences between oRPC and tRPC is the approach to API design. While tRPC has grown increasingly complex over time, oRPC focuses on simplicity without sacrificing functionality.

A developer on Reddit noted, "I am waiting for this to stabilize but I like it the most when compared to other alternatives!" This sentiment highlights both the excitement around oRPC's streamlined approach and the cautious stance some developers take regarding newer tools.

Setup and Configuration

Setting up an API with oRPC typically requires less configuration than tRPC. For example, creating a basic endpoint in oRPC:

// oRPC example
export const getUserById = procedure
  .input(z.object({ id: z.number() }))
  .output(z.object({ name: z.string(), email: z.string() }))
  .handler(async ({ input }) => {
    // Implementation
    return { name: "John Doe", email: "john@example.com" };
  });

The equivalent in tRPC often involves more boilerplate and configuration steps.

File Handling Capabilities

Perhaps the most notable advantage of oRPC over tRPC is its native support for file uploads and downloads. While tRPC requires additional integrations or workarounds for file handling, oRPC incorporates these features directly into its core functionality.

When to Choose oRPC Over Alternatives

Understanding when to opt for oRPC over other solutions is crucial for making informed decisions about your project's architecture. Consider choosing oRPC in the following scenarios:

1. Next.js Projects Leveraging Server Actions

If you're building with Next.js and want to take full advantage of Server Actions, oRPC offers seamless integration that enhances developer experience:

// Server component using oRPC with Server Actions
export default function UserProfile({ userId }: { userId: number }) {
  return (
    <form action={api.users.updateProfile.createServerAction()}>
      <input name="userId" value={userId} type="hidden" />
      <input name="name" placeholder="Name" />
      <button type="submit">Update Profile</button>
    </form>
  );
}

2. Projects Requiring File Management

For applications that need to handle file uploads or downloads, oRPC's built-in support eliminates the need for additional libraries or complex integrations. This is particularly valuable for content management systems, document sharing platforms, or any application with media handling requirements.

3. Teams Seeking Simplicity Without Sacrifice

If your team values a clean, intuitive API without excessive boilerplate but still needs comprehensive typesafe functionality, oRPC strikes an excellent balance. As one developer mentioned, "It's one of those things where once you use it, you'll never go back."

4. Applications Needing OpenAPI Integration

oRPC's smart conversion and bracket notation enhances OpenAPI integration, making it an excellent choice for teams that need to expose their APIs to third-party consumers or integrate with existing OpenAPI ecosystems.

Alternatives Worth Considering

While oRPC offers numerous advantages, other alternatives might be more suitable depending on your specific requirements:

ts-rest

For teams committed to RESTful principles who still want typesafe APIs, ts-rest provides an excellent option. As one developer recommended, "If you're just in it for the DX, but would prefer to stick with REST, look into ts-rest."

WunderGraph

For complex backend functionality and implementation of the Backend for Frontend (BFF) pattern, WunderGraph has gained popularity. According to one developer, "I found WunderGraph and won't go back. Being able to handle anything and do BFF is the best."

Effect/rpc

For projects already using the Effect ecosystem, Effect/rpc provides tight integration with other Effect libraries and a functional programming approach to API development.

Stability Considerations

A common concern about newer tools like oRPC is stability. As one developer expressed, "I am waiting for this to stabilize but I like it the most when compared to other alternatives!"

While tRPC may be perceived as a lower-risk option due to its established community and longer history, oRPC's active development and responsive maintenance suggest promising long-term viability. According to the maintainers, recent versions are "very close to v1 now," indicating approaching stability.

Conclusion: Making the Right Choice for Your Project

The decision between oRPC, tRPC, or other alternatives ultimately depends on your specific project requirements, team preferences, and risk tolerance. Here are some final guidelines to help you decide:

• Choose oRPC if you value simplicity, need built-in file handling, and want seamless Next.js Server Actions integration.

• Stick with tRPC if you prefer a battle-tested solution with an established ecosystem and community support.

• Consider ts-rest if you're committed to RESTful principles but want typesafe APIs.

• Explore WunderGraph for complex BFF implementations and diverse API integrations.

As the TypeScript API ecosystem continues to evolve, tools like oRPC represent the ongoing innovation in developer experience and productivity. By understanding the comparative strengths and limitations of each option, you can select the solution that best aligns with your project goals and technical requirements.

For developers interested in exploring oRPC further, check out the official GitHub repository for comprehensive documentation, examples, and implementation guidance.

Remember that no solution is perfect for every scenario, as one developer wisely noted, "the purpose is to state that nothing here is perfect for everything." The best choice is the one that addresses your specific needs while enabling your team to work efficiently and effectively.