MQTT vs HTTP for IoT device communication: performance comparison and best practices

In IoT development, the choice of communication protocol is more than a technical detail. The proper protocol extends battery life, cuts network costs, and ensures devices stay connected in challenging conditions. The wrong one introduces latency, drops data, and limits scalability. Two of the most common options for device-to-cloud communication are MQTT and HTTP: both are well-established, widely supported, and secure, but they’re built for different purposes. Let's see how each works, compare their performance using real-world metrics, and outline best practices for implementing them in IoT environments.

What is MQTT?

MQTT, or Message Queuing Telemetry Transport, is a lightweight messaging protocol originally developed by IBM in the late 1990s to handle telemetry data from oil pipelines. It was designed to function reliably over networks with low bandwidth, high latency, or intermittent connectivity — conditions that are still common in IoT deployments today. The protocol operates on a publish–subscribe model, meaning that devices (known as clients) don’t send data directly to one another. Instead, they publish messages to a broker, which then forwards them to any other clients subscribed to that message topic.

This architecture has several benefits in IoT scenarios. It decouples devices, so publishers and subscribers don’t need to know about each other’s network details, and it allows for easy distribution of the same message to many recipients. MQTT typically runs over TCP/IP and can be secured with TLS, making it suitable for both public and private networks. One of its defining characteristics is its extremely small protocol overhead: the fixed header is only 2 bytes, which makes it highly efficient for transmitting frequent, small payloads from constrained devices.

What is HTTP?

HTTP, or Hypertext Transfer Protocol, is the foundation of data exchange on the World Wide Web and has been the dominant client–server communication standard since the early 1990s. It follows a request–response model: a client sends a request to a server, and the server replies with the requested data or an error message. This model is inherently stateless, meaning each request is independent and does not require the server to remember prior interactions. However, in practice, mechanisms like cookies or tokens are used to maintain session-like behavior. For IoT applications, HTTP’s greatest advantage lies in its ubiquity and compatibility. Because it’s the same protocol used by browsers and web services, it integrates seamlessly with REST APIs, cloud platforms, and existing enterprise infrastructure. It also works reliably over modern internet connections and is fully compatible with firewalls and proxies, which can sometimes hinder specialized IoT protocols. HTTP is typically transported over TCP/IP, with HTTPS adding TLS encryption for security.

However, HTTP comes with a higher overhead compared to MQTT. Each request carries verbose headers that can easily exceed several hundred bytes, even for very small payloads. This makes HTTP less efficient for high-frequency, low-volume transmissions. On the other hand, it is well suited to occasional or large data transfers, such as sending device logs, retrieving configuration files, or downloading firmware updates. The protocol has evolved significantly, with HTTP/2 introducing multiplexing and header compression, and HTTP/3 adding QUIC-based transport to reduce latency. These enhancements make HTTP more competitive for some IoT use cases, but it still tends to consume more bandwidth and power than MQTT for continuous telemetry.

MQTT vs HTTP: technical performance comparison

With the performance criteria defined, it’s time to examine how MQTT and HTTP behave under real-world IoT conditions.

Latency

In low-latency environments, the protocol’s connection management plays a major role. MQTT maintains a persistent TCP connection between the client and broker. Once this connection is established, messages can be sent without the overhead of additional handshakes. The protocol’s small header size further reduces the time needed to prepare and transmit a packet, often resulting in sub-100 ms delivery in LAN environments and 250–500 ms over typical WAN links. By contrast, HTTP traditionally requires a new TCP handshake for each request–response cycle, unless persistent connections (HTTP/1.1 keep-alive) or multiplexing (HTTP/2) are enabled. These optimizations narrow the gap but don’t always eliminate it, especially on networks with variable latency. HTTP’s stateless nature also means that servers do not keep a continuous communication channel open, so any push-style updates require additional polling or WebSocket integration.

Bandwidth usage

MQTT’s 2-byte fixed header makes it extremely bandwidth-efficient for small, frequent payloads such as sensor readings or status updates. Even when including variable header fields and topic strings, the total overhead remains minimal. This efficiency is especially important in environments with expensive or limited connectivity, for example, remote telemetry over satellite links, where every transmitted byte has a cost. HTTP, on the other hand, carries significantly more overhead. A typical HTTP request and response can easily total 800–1,000 bytes of headers, even for a payload of just a few bytes. Compression (e.g., gzip) can reduce some of this, but the gains are most noticeable for larger payloads. In continuous data-streaming use cases, this header bloat can become a major factor in network usage and associated costs.

Power consumption

Every transmission costs power, but the way a protocol manages connections can make a substantial difference for battery-powered IoT devices. MQTT’s persistent connection model reduces the number of TCP/TLS handshakes, which are relatively energy-intensive. The smaller packet size also means less time spent with the radio module active, resulting in longer battery life. In controlled tests, devices using MQTT for frequent telemetry have shown battery life improvements of 25–30% compared to equivalent HTTP implementations. HTTP’s request–response design means the device often wakes up, connects, transmits, waits for a response, and then shuts down the connection. While this may be acceptable for infrequent transmissions, it becomes costly when messages are sent regularly — the repeated connection cycles drain energy quickly.

Reliability in unstable networks

In IoT deployments, devices often operate on networks that are not guaranteed to be stable — think moving vehicles switching between cellular towers, or industrial sites with intermittent Wi-Fi coverage. MQTT addresses this challenge with Quality of Service (QoS) levels:

• QoS 0: Fire-and-forget (no guarantee of delivery).
• QoS 1: At least once delivery with acknowledgement.
• QoS 2: Exactly once delivery (highest reliability, most overhead).

Additionally, MQTT brokers can buffer messages for disconnected clients and deliver them when they reconnect. HTTP lacks such mechanisms at the protocol level; reliability must be implemented in application logic, using retries, status codes, and possibly local storage to queue unsent data.

Scalability

Scalability in MQTT comes from its topic-based IoT architecture and efficient handling of large numbers of simultaneous connections. A well-configured broker can support millions of devices without significant performance degradation, provided hardware and network resources are sufficient. MQTT’s publish–subscribe model also allows for efficient one-to-many distribution, which is ideal for scenarios like sending control commands to entire device groups. HTTP scalability relies on statelessness, which is well-suited for traditional web servers and load balancing. However, supporting continuous or frequent device communication requires scaling connection-handling infrastructure, potentially adding complexity and cost. While HTTP scales effectively for on-demand interactions, it’s less naturally suited for massive, always-connected IoT networks.

Security

Both MQTT and HTTP can use TLS to secure communications, but their implementations differ. In MQTT, the broker manages authentication and authorization, typically through username/password combinations, client certificates, or tokens. Mutual TLS (mTLS) can be enforced for stronger identity verification. HTTP benefits from decades of maturity in TLS deployment and integration with enterprise-grade authentication systems like OAuth 2.0 or API keys. One notable difference is firewall traversal. HTTP traffic (especially HTTPS over port 443) is almost universally allowed, making it easy to deploy in restrictive network environments. MQTT, if blocked by firewalls, can be tunneled over WebSockets to achieve similar accessibility, though this may introduce slight additional overhead.

Table: MQTT vs HTTP for IoT device communication

You may be interested in: IoT communication models

When to choose MQTT

MQTT is the natural fit for real-time telemetry and scenarios where devices must maintain a steady stream of small, time-sensitive updates. For example, an industrial monitoring system might have hundreds of vibration and temperature sensors feeding data into a predictive maintenance application every few seconds. MQTT’s persistent connection and minimal overhead ensure that updates arrive quickly without saturating the network. It also performs exceptionally well in low-bandwidth or high-latency environments. Consider a fleet of shipping containers equipped with GPS trackers and environmental sensors. These devices often operate in rural or maritime areas where cellular coverage is spotty, and transmission costs are high. 

Another strong case for MQTT is battery-powered or energy-constrained devices. A smart agriculture deployment may involve soil moisture sensors that run for months on small batteries. By keeping connections open and minimizing transmission overhead, MQTT can significantly extend operating life. Finally, its publish–subscribe model is ideal when multiple consumers need the same data, such as broadcasting live weather station readings to both a control dashboard and an automated irrigation system.

When to choose HTTP

HTTP is a better fit for scenarios where data exchange is infrequent, large in size, or heavily integrated with web infrastructure. Device provisioning is a prime example: when a new IoT device is installed, it might need to send a single registration request to a cloud API, fetch configuration parameters, and download security certificates. These operations are relatively rare but involve larger payloads and complex interactions with REST endpoints — an area where HTTP excels.

HTTP is also well-suited for firmware and software updates. Downloading a 10 MB firmware package is more efficient via HTTP, which supports range requests, caching, and well-established content delivery networks (CDNs). In such cases, MQTT’s efficiency advantage disappears because the payload size dwarfs any header overhead. Moreover, HTTP’s universal compatibility makes it a safe choice in strict firewall or corporate network environments. For instance, medical IoT devices installed in hospitals often operate behind stringent network security policies. Because HTTPS traffic is almost always allowed through firewalls, it avoids deployment delays or the need for special tunneling configurations.

You may be interested in: What is VNC in IoT? Remote access for embedded devices and smart systems

Conclusion

MQTT and HTTP are both proven, reliable protocols, but they were built with very different design goals, and those differences matter in IoT. MQTT thrives in environments where bandwidth is scarce, power efficiency is critical, and real-time, event-driven data exchange is the norm. HTTP, by contrast, remains the most straightforward option for infrequent or large data transfers, especially when deep integration with web services or compatibility with enterprise firewalls is a priority. The real takeaway is that protocol choice should never be a default decision. Instead, it should be based on measurable factors: the frequency and size of data transmissions, network stability, energy constraints, security requirements, and integration needs. For many deployments, the most effective strategy may be a hybrid approach — using MQTT for continuous telemetry and HTTP for configuration, provisioning, and firmware updates.