HTTPX vs Requests: Which Python HTTP Client Performs Better? [2025]

The performance gap between httpx vs requests speaks for itself. HTTPX processes 50 synchronous GET requests in about 1.22 seconds. Requests needs around 1.5 seconds to complete the same task. This Python HTTP client doesn't just perform better—it meets today's web development demands.

API integrations and website scraping tasks showcase the clear advantages between python httpx vs requests standards. HTTPX completes 50 POST requests in 1.3 seconds while Requests takes 1.6 seconds. The results show HTTPX performing up to 7 times better than Requests in specific scenarios, especially when you have asynchronous operations.

The key difference between httpx vs requests python lies in their operation modes. HTTPX supports both synchronous and asynchronous operations, but Requests only works synchronously. HTTPX makes shared I/O possible, which helps developers create responsive applications that handle many concurrent requests efficiently. This capability serves as the foundation for modern web scraping and API-heavy projects.

This piece will dive deep into the httpx vs requests python comparison. You'll learn about their features, performance gaps, and find the library that matches your development requirements perfectly.

What Are HTTPX and Requests?

Python developers who need HTTP clients can pick between two powerful options. HTTPX and Requests represent different generations of HTTP client libraries. Each has unique capabilities that make them ideal for different scenarios.

Overview of HTTPX: Async-Ready and HTTP/2 Capable

HTTPX came about as a modern HTTP client to deal with older libraries' limitations. The team at Encode (creators of Starlette, Uvicorn, and Django Rest Framework) built HTTPX to provide both synchronous and asynchronous APIs in one library. Developers can write code that handles multiple operations at once without blocking the main thread.

This library shines with its built-in HTTP/2 protocol support, which brings major performance gains through:

• Multiplexing: Multiple requests share a single TCP connection
• Header compression: Less overhead in HTTP communications
• Stream prioritization: Important resources load first

You'll need to install optional dependencies with pip install 'httpx[http2]' and turn it on when creating a client instance to utilize HTTP/2 features. HTTPX keeps a familiar API similar to Requests, which helps developers switch between libraries easily.

HTTPX needs Python 3.9+ and works with both asyncio and trio as async environments. It figures out which one to use for socket operations on its own. Developers who work with async web frameworks will find HTTPX fits right in with its async client features.

On top of that, HTTPX comes with modern features like type annotations for better IDE support and automatic handling of JSON and other common formats.

Overview of Requests: Simplicity and Synchronous Focus

Requests has become the favorite tool for making HTTP requests in Python. The library launched on Valentine's Day 2011 and changed how Python developers work with web services by offering an easy-to-use API.

Requests focuses on keeping things simple. It takes care of complex HTTP communications behind the scenes:

• Content decodes automatically based on Content-Type headers
• Sessions keep parameters across requests
• Error handling works intuitively for network and HTTP issues
• Gzip-encoded responses decompress automatically

Requests stays popular because it's reliable and well-documented. The library works great for beginners or projects that need basic HTTP features.

The library only works synchronously, which means each request must finish before the next one starts. It also doesn't support HTTP/2 natively, which can slow things down when you have many concurrent requests.

The requests.Session() object (like HTTPX's Client()) keeps cookies between requests and lets you set up rules for multiple outgoing requests. Yet its synchronous nature might cause slowdowns in applications that need lots of concurrent requests.

These differences between HTTPX and Requests show how Python HTTP clients have grown. Each library serves its own purpose in the ecosystem. HTTPX builds on what made Requests great and adds features needed for modern web development.

Key Differences Between HTTPX and Requests

These two libraries have fundamental architectural differences that shape their capabilities and performance. Let's take a closer look at how HTTPX and Requests differ in their core functionality and design.

Async Support: HTTPX with asyncio vs None in Requests

HTTPX comes with both synchronous and asynchronous APIs. Developers can make non-blocking HTTP requests using Python's modern async/await syntax. This native async support helps applications handle multiple concurrent connections without extra threads or processes.

# Asynchronous request with HTTPXasync def fetch(url):    
async with httpx.AsyncClient() as client:        
response = await client.get(url)        
return response.text

‍


Requests only works synchronously. Each request must finish before the next one starts. Applications that need concurrency must use external libraries or thread pools. This adds more complexity to the codebase.

HTTP/2 Compatibility: Native in HTTPX Only

HTTP/2 brings substantial performance gains through multiplexing and header compression. HTTPX supports this protocol natively. Here's how to use HTTP/2 in HTTPX:

1. Install the optional HTTP/2 dependencies: pip install httpx[http2]
2. Enable HTTP/2 when creating a client: client = httpx.Client(http2=True)

HTTPX smartly switches to HTTP/1.1 for servers that don't support HTTP/2. This compatibility makes applications work with servers of all types while getting HTTP/2 benefits where possible.

Streaming and File Handling: More Efficient in HTTPX

Both libraries handle streaming uploads and downloads. HTTPX does this job more efficiently. You can download large files without loading the entire response into memory:

with httpx.stream('GET', 'https://example.com/largefile') as r:    
with open('largefile', 'wb') as f:        
for chunk in r.iter_bytes():            
f.write(chunk)

‍


On top of that, HTTPX's response.num_bytes_downloaded property helps track download progress. This feature makes it easy to create progress indicators for large transfers. Requests doesn't offer this capability.

User-Agent and SSL Handling Differences

Each library identifies itself uniquely to servers. HTTPX uses "httpx" as its user-agent header. Requests goes with "Python-Requests". Server responses might vary based on these identifiers.

SSL security shows another key difference. HTTPX works better with various SSL cipher suites. Requests sometimes struggles with certain cipher configurations. This matters most when dealing with servers that have strict security rules.

API Differences: Function Signatures and Behavior

The libraries might look similar at first glance, but they have important behavioral differences:

• HTTPX doesn't automatically follow redirects like Requests does
• Requests uses Session while HTTPX uses Client
• String request bodies use utf-8 in HTTPX but latin1 in Requests
• Raw content uploads need the content parameter in HTTPX instead of data
• File uploads in HTTPX must use binary mode to avoid encoding issues
• HTTPX provides .stream() rather than the stream=True parameter
• HTTPX sets default timeouts while Requests doesn't

These differences can substantially affect how applications behave. This becomes especially important when switching between libraries or working with specific requirements.

Performance Comparison: HTTPX vs Requests

Performance standards show significant differences between these two popular Python HTTP libraries. The data clearly shows their relative strengths as we explore deeply into their speed, efficiency, and error handling capabilities.

HTTPX vs Requests Performance Standard (2025)

Recent tests show HTTPX performs better than Requests in direct comparisons. HTTPX completes 50 synchronous GET requests in about 1.22 seconds, while Requests needs around 1.5 seconds. The same pattern emerges with 50 synchronous POST requests - HTTPX finishes in 1.3 seconds while Requests takes 1.6 seconds.

A larger scale test with 100 GET requests reveals even bigger differences:

‍

These results demonstrate that HTTPX delivers better performance than Requests even in synchronous mode.

Synchronous vs Asynchronous Speed Tests

The most substantial performance gap appears in synchronous versus asynchronous operations. Tests with 100 concurrent requests to a server with 0.1-second delay showed impressive results. Asynchronous HTTPX finished all requests in just 0.19 seconds. Requests took 10.18 seconds to complete the same task.

This remarkable speed improvement happens because asynchronous operations run multiple requests simultaneously without waiting for each one to finish. The total time equals the slowest individual request plus a small overhead to manage concurrency.

Connection Pooling and Keep-Alive Efficiency

Both libraries support connection pooling, but their implementation efficiency is substantially different. Connection pooling reuses pre-established connections for HTTP requests instead of creating new ones each time.

Standards show that proper connection pooling reduces request times dramatically:

# Results from connection pooling tests[No Pooling] 13.8s
[Default Pooling] 8.5s
[Tuned Pooling] 6.3s

‍


HTTPX's connection management system handles concurrent connections more effectively. The transport manager (HTTPTransport by default) in HTTPX maintains the TCP connection pool, making it especially effective to handle many rapid requests.

Error Handling and Retry Performance

Error handling capabilities become vital for applications on unreliable networks. HTTPX has built-in retry mechanisms that you can configure through its transport layer:

transport = AsyncHTTPTransport(retries=3)

This approach automatically manages connection failures and timeouts. Extensions like httpx-retries enable more advanced retry policies that match those in Requests.

Benchmark tests with a 10% failure rate across 1000 requests showed HTTPX completed the task in 12.5 seconds, while Requests needed 15.8 seconds. HTTPX's optimized error handling architecture improves efficiency by reducing time spent managing failures.

Pros and Cons of Each Library

HTTPX and Requests each have unique strengths and limitations that make them suitable for different programming scenarios. Let's explore what makes each library special.

Pros of HTTPX: Async, HTTP/2, Modern Features

HTTPX shines with its support for both synchronous and asynchronous operations. Developers can run multiple HTTP requests at the same time without blocking the main thread. The library comes with built-in HTTP/2 support that streamlines processes through multiplexing, header compression, and server push technologies.

The library's architecture has sections that developers love:

• It decodes JSON and common data formats automatically
• Full type annotations make IDE support better
• Advanced connection pooling handles multiple concurrent connections
• Built-in retry mechanisms provide reliable error handling

Cons of HTTPX: Smaller Community, Learning Curve

HTTPX has a smaller user base than Requests. This means you'll find fewer tutorials, examples, and third-party extensions. The library needs extra boilerplate code and a good grasp of asynchronous programming concepts.

The library takes up more space than Requests, which could matter for size-conscious applications. Moving existing code from Requests to HTTPX can be tricky because of subtle API differences.

Pros of Requests: Simplicity, Stability, Community

Requests' reputation comes from its simple and accessible design. Simple HTTP operations need minimal code. Years in the Python ecosystem have made it stable and reliable.

The library has a huge community that creates plenty of documentation, tutorials, and third-party extensions. This support network helps solve problems quickly, especially for newcomers. Requests' user-focused API hides many HTTP communication complexities.

Cons of Requests: No Async, No HTTP/2

Requests' biggest problem is that it can't handle asynchronous operations natively. This slows things down when applications need to manage multiple concurrent connections. Applications must use threads or processes for parallel operations, which adds complexity.

The library doesn't support HTTP/2, so you miss out on performance benefits in modern web environments. You can add HTTP/2 support through third-party extensions, but it's not as smooth as HTTPX's built-in solution. Requests uses synchronous socket operations only, which isn't ideal for high-concurrency scenarios.

Choosing the Right Library for Your Project

The best HTTP library choice depends on your project needs, developer background, and performance goals. Let's look at what each library offers to help you make the right choice.

Best for Beginners: Requests

Requests stands out as the go-to choice for developers starting with Python HTTP clients. The library's user-friendly design lets you write minimal code to get things done. New developers who need to make simple API calls or build basic web scrapers will find Requests easy to use. The library comes with great documentation and strong community support that creates a perfect environment to learn. Requests gives you all the HTTP features you need for simple synchronous operations where performance isn't critical.

Best for High-Concurrency Apps: HTTPX

HTTPX excels at handling multiple connections at once. Your project might need web scraping on many sites or talking to several microservices. In these cases, HTTPX's async features give you a big advantage. The library handles parallel requests so well that it runs up to 7 times faster than Requests when dealing with lots of traffic. On top of that, it supports HTTP/2, which loads multiple resources faster through one TCP connection and makes it tougher for websites to track your browser fingerprint.

Transitioning from Requests to HTTPX

The switch from Requests to HTTPX doesn't take much effort since their APIs look similar. You start by updating your imports and then adapt your code to work with async requests. Here are the main differences:

• HTTPX doesn't follow redirects by default
• Client instances replace Session objects
• HTTPX uses utf-8 encoding (not latin1)
• File uploads must use binary mode

Use Case Scenarios: API Clients, Web Scraping, SDKs

HTTPX performs better for API clients that need to handle multiple endpoints at once. Requests works great for simple API integrations where readable code matters most.

HTTPX proves its worth in web scraping projects that need to handle large volumes. The library streams large responses without eating up memory.

SDK development benefits from HTTPX's ability to support both sync and async operations in one codebase. This feature helps developers create flexible tools that work in different situations.

HTTPX makes the most sense if you need top performance or plan to scale your app in the future.

Conclusion

A deep look at both Python HTTP clients reveals clear differences between HTTPX and Requests. HTTPX performs better than Requests in measures of all types, and it completes tasks up to 7 times faster in some cases. This gap becomes even more noticeable with HTTPX's asynchronous features that let multiple requests run at the same time instead of one after another.

Your project's specific needs will help you pick between these libraries. Requests excels with its simple nature, mature ecosystem, and strong community support. It's a great fit for developers who are just starting out or working on simple HTTP tasks.

HTTPX proves to be the better choice for modern web development. Its API works both synchronously and asynchronously, which gives you amazing flexibility. The native HTTP/2 support makes things more efficient through multiplexing and header compression. Developers who build high-concurrency applications, web scrapers, or speed-critical systems should pick HTTPX as their main HTTP client.

Moving from Requests to HTTPX is pretty straightforward because their APIs are similar. You'll need to watch out for small differences in how they handle redirects, encoding defaults, and errors. The time you spend learning asynchronous programming pays off quickly with much better performance.

Python developers have a straightforward choice. They can stick with Request's reliable simplicity for simple needs or welcome HTTPX's modern design for better performance and future-ready features. HTTPX is the way forward for developers ready to invest in more efficient and adaptable HTTP communications, thanks to its significant performance benefits and expanded features.

FAQs

What are the main differences between HTTPX and Requests?

HTTPX supports both synchronous and asynchronous operations, has native HTTP/2 compatibility, and offers more efficient streaming and file handling. Requests, on the other hand, is simpler to use and has a larger community, but lacks async support and HTTP/2 compatibility.

Which library performs better in benchmarks?

HTTPX generally outperforms Requests in benchmarks. For example, HTTPX completes 50 synchronous GET requests in about 1.22 seconds, while Requests takes around 1.5 seconds for the same task. The performance gap widens significantly when using HTTPX's asynchronous capabilities.

Is HTTPX suitable  for beginners?

While HTTPX offers more advanced features, Requests is generally considered more suitable for beginners due to its simplicity and extensive documentation. However, developers looking to leverage async capabilities and modern features may find HTTPX worth the initial learning curve.

How does HTTPX handle connection pooling compared to Requests?

HTTPX's connection management system handles multiple concurrent connections more efficiently than Requests. Its transport manager maintains the TCP connection pool, making it particularly effective for applications requiring numerous rapid requests.

When should I choose HTTPX over Requests for my project?

Choose HTTPX for high-concurrency applications, projects requiring async capabilities, or when HTTP/2 support is needed. It's ideal for web scraping across numerous sites or interacting with multiple microservices. If you're developing applications where performance is critical or preparing for future scalability, HTTPX is the forward-looking choice.