Analyzing Performance and Scalability: NestJS vs Spring Boot in 2025

1. Summary

• As of May 20, 2025, this comprehensive analysis explores the performance and scalability of two leading server-side frameworks: NestJS, built on Node.js, and Spring Boot, based on Java. This evaluation draws upon four recent performance analyses that provide critical insights into their respective architectures, benchmark results for throughput and latency, and threading and concurrency models. The frameworks each employ distinct approaches to their core functionalities, which significantly affects their applicability in various scenarios. NestJS favors a modular architecture promoting the development of distributed systems, making it particularly attractive for applications demanding high throughput and low latency. Conversely, Spring Boot is hailed for its streamlined setup and conventional architecture, advantageous for complex enterprise solutions requiring extensive integration capabilities. The benchmarking phase establishes a clear performance baseline where NestJS consistently outperforms Spring Boot in I/O-bound operations, revealing throughput gains of up to 390% under high concurrency. Additionally, the analysis highlights NestJS's superior latency performance, allowing developers to prioritize real-time responsiveness in their applications. While Spring Boot holds the advantage in traditional enterprise environments, its inherently synchronous model presents challenges in scalability, pointing toward the need for careful architecture consideration as application demands evolve. Furthermore, ongoing contributions from both communities underline the significance of leveraging the right tooling and ecosystem support, informing the decisions of teams navigating the technology selection process.

• The detailed exploration within this report culminates in a decision framework that guides organizations in selecting the ideal technology based on performance metrics, operational dynamics, and long-term maintainability considerations. The results not only help clarify the present capabilities of both frameworks but also set the stage for anticipating future developments and optimizations in their architectures.

2. Framework Architectures and Core Features

• 2-1. Development philosophy and modular architecture

• NestJS and Spring Boot embody distinct development philosophies that significantly influence their architecture and feature sets. NestJS adopts a modular architecture that encourages developers to decompose applications into separate modules. Each module is a cohesive unit that encapsulates closely related functionalities, fostering better organization and maintainability. This modularity is particularly beneficial for large applications that require scalability and team collaboration, as it allows different teams to work concurrently on isolated modules. The framework is built with TypeScript, ensuring type safety and modern JavaScript features, which further enhances code quality and development productivity. In contrast, Spring Boot is rooted in the convention-over-configuration paradigm, simplifying the setup process by leveraging sensible defaults and auto-configuration. This framework is built on the Java ecosystem, which is known for its stability and maturity. Spring Boot prioritizes productivity by reducing boilerplate code, enabling developers to focus on application logic rather than configuration. Additionally, it boasts significant support for various enterprise capabilities, including security and data management, making it a go-to choice for building robust enterprise applications.

• Both frameworks also prioritize ease of use and developer experience. NestJS offers flexibility by supporting microservices architecture natively, allowing developers to create distributed systems that scale effectively. Spring Boot, likewise, integrates seamlessly with the broader Spring ecosystem, providing extensive libraries and tools that enhance its capabilities for enterprise-grade application development.

• 2-2. Dependency injection and extensibility

• Dependency injection (DI) is a core feature of both NestJS and Spring Boot, although its implementation and extensibility differ significantly between the two frameworks. NestJS employs a powerful and versatile dependency injection system that enhances the reusability and testability of components. In NestJS, dependencies are managed through decorators and modules, allowing developers to easily inject services into controllers and other providers. This capability simplifies unit testing by facilitating mock implementations of dependencies. The modular design of NestJS enables developers to organize and share services across multiple modules efficiently, fostering a clean and maintainable project structure. Spring Boot also offers a robust DI system as part of the Spring framework, utilizing annotations like @Autowired to manage dependencies automatically. This system promotes loose coupling between components, significantly improving the maintainability and scalability of applications. Additionally, Spring's DI mechanism integrates deeply with the framework's extensive ecosystem, allowing developers to leverage a wide range of libraries and tools effectively. The extensibility of Spring Boot is exemplified by its ability to integrate seamlessly with other Spring projects such as Spring Security and Spring Data, making it a highly versatile choice for enterprise applications.

• 2-3. Ecosystem, tooling, and community support

• The ecosystems surrounding NestJS and Spring Boot play a crucial role in their adoption and effectiveness in real-world applications. NestJS, while newer than Spring Boot, has a rapidly growing ecosystem, thanks to its foundation on Node.js and TypeScript. A vibrant community has emerged around NestJS, contributing numerous packages and modules that extend the framework's functionality. This growth is supported by a rich set of tooling available for developers, including a CLI that accelerates project scaffolding and support for popular libraries and middleware. Moreover, as more organizations adopt NestJS for scalable applications, community contributions and support have surged, making it increasingly easier for new developers to get on board. Conversely, Spring Boot benefits from a long-established and mature ecosystem that is part of the larger Spring framework. This longevity has resulted in a vast array of documentation, tutorials, and community resources that developers can utilize. Spring Boot's integration with other Spring projects enables a comprehensive development experience, offering solutions for database management, security, messaging, and more. The extensive tooling available for Java developers—ranging from IDE support to build tools like Maven and Gradle—enhances the development workflow. The strong community backing and diverse ecosystem make it a preferred choice for enterprise developers seeking maturity and robustness in their applications.

3. Benchmarking Performance: Throughput and Latency Analysis

• 3-1. Benchmark methodologies and testing environments

• To accurately assess the performance of NestJS and Spring Boot, rigorous benchmarking methodologies were established, focusing on throughput and latency metrics. The tests employed a controlled environment that minimized external variables, allowing for clear comparisons. Both frameworks were deployed on equivalent hardware, characterized by a single CPU core and 4GB of RAM, to ensure fairness in the benchmarking process. Key performance indicators were measured using the 'wrk' tool, which is renowned for its ability to generate significant HTTP load, mirroring real-world usage conditions. The primary test endpoints were designed to simulate diverse operational scenarios, such as I/O-bound tasks (e.g., responding to API calls with a preset delay) and CPU-intensive computations (e.g., performing Fibonacci calculations). This multifaceted approach provided a holistic view of how each framework performs under different loads, including increasing demands from multiple concurrent connections.

• 3-2. REST API throughput comparison

• The results of the throughput comparisons revealed distinct performance characteristics between NestJS and Spring Boot. For I/O-bound operations, NestJS demonstrated a remarkable capability, outperforming Spring Boot by a factor of up to 390% at high concurrency levels. Specifically, Node.js's non-blocking, event-driven architecture enabled it to efficiently handle thousands of simultaneous requests without significant degradation in performance. Conversely, Spring Boot's performance suffered under similar loads, particularly as it utilizes a thread-per-request model, leading to increased overhead and diminishing throughput as the number of concurrent connections rose. In scenarios combining I/O and CPU tasks, NestJS sustained higher throughput rates, with analyses indicating up to 368% better performance than Spring Boot for mixed workloads—a critical factor to consider for applications requiring responsiveness and efficiency.

• 3-3. Latency under varying loads

• Latency measurements during the benchmarking tests provided additional insights into the operational efficiency of both frameworks. In I/O-heavy scenarios, NestJS consistently exhibited lower latency, maintaining swift response times even as concurrency increased. This efficiency was particularly evident as requests surged, with Spring Boot experiencing noticeable delays and exceeding timeout thresholds under heavy loads. In contrast, while Java, the underlying technology for Spring Boot, manages compute-intensive tasks effectively, its architecture imposes greater latency penalties during I/O-bound operations due to more complex threading models. The analysis highlighted that for applications prioritizing real-time responsiveness, particularly those that execute numerous I/O operations, the advantages of NestJS in terms of reduced latency could inform technology selection in favor of Node.js.

4. Concurrency and Thread Management Strategies

• 4-1. Event-loop model in NestJS vs thread pools in Spring Boot

• The comparison of concurrency models between NestJS and Spring Boot reveals fundamental differences in their architectures. NestJS employs a single-threaded event-loop model, similar to the one used by Node.js, which allows it to efficiently handle asynchronous concurrency. This model processes multiple requests on a single thread by utilizing non-blocking I/O operations, allowing for high scalability and responsiveness under load. Each incoming request is registered as an event, and the event-loop can manage thousands of concurrent connections without the overhead of thread management. Consequently, this model is particularly effective for I/O-bound applications where many operations are spent in wait states, such as database queries or network requests. Conversely, Spring Boot traditionally relies on a thread-pool model, specifically within classic Spring MVC applications, where each request is processed by a distinct thread from a pool. This thread-per-request model simplifies understanding and programming but introduces limitations in scalability. As the number of concurrent requests grows, so does the demand for available threads, which leads to increased memory consumption and potential bottlenecks. While Spring has adapted its model to incorporate non-blocking I/O operations through Spring WebFlux, the fundamental approach to concurrency remains different, with an inherent complexity introduced by reactive programming paradigms.

• 4-2. Asynchronous processing patterns

• Asynchronous programming patterns are integral to both NestJS and Spring Boot, albeit implemented through different methodologies. In NestJS, the event-driven nature allows developers to leverage asynchronous constructs seamlessly. The framework uses Promises and Async/Await syntax, providing a digestible approach for handling asynchronous operations. For instance, a module can define asynchronous controllers and services that return data without blocking the main thread, fostering high responsiveness. In contrast, Spring Boot uses annotations like @Async to enable asynchronous processing, capitalizing on Java's CompletableFuture and other constructs to manage non-blocking operations. This annotation allows a method to run in a separate thread, separately from the caller's thread. However, it also introduces complexities such as thread pool management and potential issues with thread contention. Spring developers often rely on specific task executors to differentiate between I/O-bound and CPU-bound tasks, allowing more efficient resource utilization. Nevertheless, while both frameworks enable asynchronous processing, the granularity and complexity of implementation in Spring Boot generally demand a higher learning curve compared to the straightforwardness in NestJS.

• 4-3. Advanced threading scenarios and best practices

• Advanced threading scenarios often test the robustness of a framework's concurrency model. In Spring Boot, developers frequently encounter challenges like thread contention and performance bottlenecks due to its traditional reliance on threads for request handling. Best practices include leveraging the @Async annotation judiciously, configuring thread pools for specific workload types, and utilizing Servlet 3.0's asynchronous support to prevent blocking, which can lead to thread starvation. By carefully managing the number of concurrent threads and ensuring that non-blocking I/O operations are correctly handled, Spring applications can achieve better scalability and performance. For NestJS, best practices focus on using asynchronous APIs available within JavaScript. By embracing the event-loop model, developers are encouraged to favor asynchronous I/O operations using built-in constructs such as Promises and Observables. However, while NestJS excels in scenarios requiring significant I/O throughput, developers must also be mindful of CPU-bound tasks, which may require specialized handling or the introduction of worker threads for heavy computation. This nuanced understanding of both frameworks highlights the importance of aligning threading strategies with application requirements to optimize performance in real-world deployment scenarios.

5. Scalability, Deployment, and Use Cases

• 5-1. Horizontal scaling and clustering capabilities

• Both NestJS and Spring Boot provide horizontal scaling capabilities, although the methods differ distinctly due to their underlying architectures. NestJS, built on Node.js, utilizes an event-driven, non-blocking I/O model, allowing it to handle numerous concurrent connections efficiently. It capitalizes on Node.js's single-threaded nature but can also be scaled horizontally using clustering techniques. This involves launching multiple instances of the NestJS application, typically using the PM2 process manager or Node's built-in cluster module. Clustering enables better utilization of multi-core CPUs, although care must be taken in managing state across instances to maintain application consistency.

• On the other hand, Spring Boot, through the Java Virtual Machine (JVM), supports robust multithreading capabilities. Each incoming request can be handled by a separate thread, which can lead to resource exhaustion during peak loads if not managed properly. For effective horizontal scaling in Spring Boot, it is common practice to deploy multiple instances of the application across a cloud environment or container orchestration systems such as Kubernetes. This method allows Spring applications to utilize CPU resources more effectively, as the threads are managed within the JVM, ensuring that the load is distributed across available processors without significant downtime.

• 5-2. Containerization and cloud deployment considerations

• Containerization of applications has become a best practice for microservice-based architectures due to its ability to facilitate dependency management and streamline deployment processes. Both NestJS and Spring Boot applications lend themselves well to containerization, primarily using Docker. When deploying NestJS, developers benefit from Docker's lightweight containerization, which encapsulates the application runtime, libraries, and environment specifics. The built-in support for building images makes it straightforward to deploy Node.js applications to platforms like AWS ECS or Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE). As of now, many organizations have transitioned their NestJS applications into Docker containers, leveraging orchestration tools to achieve resilience and scalability.

• Spring Boot applications are also enhanced by Docker. They can be packaged as executable JAR files that contain an embedded server (like Tomcat), simplifying deployment in a containerized format. Cloud providers often offer specific services that autoconfigure Spring Boot applications to enhance performance in their environments, right out of the box. For cloud deployment, organizations may opt for fully managed services like AWS Elastic Beanstalk or Cloud Run to deploy Spring Boot applications, ensuring automatic scaling and load balancing, which are essential in maintaining application availability during variable traffic patterns.

• 5-3. Ideal application domains for each framework

• Choosing between NestJS and Spring Boot largely depends on the specific application domain. NestJS is particularly suitable for building lightweight, real-time applications, such as chat applications, API gateways, and event-driven microservices. Its non-blocking architecture allows businesses to handle high throughput while maintaining low latency, making it an ideal choice for applications that require quick responses to multiple user interactions. As of May 2025, the trend indicates that many startups have embraced NestJS for developing modern web applications and server-side rendered frameworks, such as those integrated with React or Angular frameworks.

• In contrast, Spring Boot shines in enterprise applications that require complex business logic and extensive integration with other systems. It is frequently used in financial services, e-commerce platforms, and large-scale enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems where reliability and robustness are paramount. Spring Boot’s mature ecosystem provides out-of-the-box solutions for security, data access, and transaction management, which are critical for such applications. Additionally, the ability to manage complex threading and interaction with traditional databases positions Spring Boot as a preferred choice for companies looking to build large, scalable systems in a controlled and consistent manner.

6. Decision Framework for Technology Selection

• 6-1. Resource and Infrastructure Cost Implications

• When selecting between NestJS and Spring Boot, one crucial factor is the resource and infrastructure cost implications associated with each framework. As of May 2025, NestJS, being a Node.js-based framework, typically requires less memory compared to Spring Boot, which is Java-based and generally exhibits higher memory footprints due to the nature of the Java Virtual Machine (JVM). Additionally, the operational costs of front-end and back-end server management can differ significantly. Teams utilizing NestJS may benefit from lower cloud hosting expenses due to its lightweight nature, particularly in handling numerous concurrent connections efficiently. Conversely, Spring Boot often leverages established enterprise-level hosting solutions, which may command higher costs. Therefore, businesses must weigh these infrastructural implications against their budget constraints and long-term scalability needs.

• 6-2. Team Expertise and Learning Curve

• The expertise of a development team plays a pivotal role in the technology selection process. As of the current date, NestJS has garnered significant traction among developers familiar with TypeScript and JavaScript, promoting a relatively smooth learning curve for teams with prior experience in these languages. Its modular structure facilitates an easier transition for new developers to grasp the framework compared to larger and more complex Java frameworks like Spring Boot. Consequently, organizations with existing Java expertise may find Spring Boot more intuitive, benefiting from community support and extensive documentation. However, for teams looking to transition towards modern, scalable architectures, investing time into learning NestJS could yield substantial returns in productivity and development velocity over the long term.

• 6-3. Maintainability and Future Evolution

• When assessing long-term maintainability and the potential for future evolution of applications, NestJS and Spring Boot present different strengths. As of May 2025, NestJS distinguishes itself with its design focused on modularity and scalability, promoting code maintainability crucial for growing applications. Its lifecycle is closely tied to the rapidly evolving JavaScript ecosystem, which is experiencing continuous enhancements in performance and new features through regular updates.

• On the other hand, Spring Boot benefits from a robust, mature ecosystem with longstanding industry commitment. Java frameworks have substantial investment in backward compatibility and evolution, allowing organizations to adopt new features without extensive refactoring. However, organizations must stay informed about updates, as Java’s evolution—particularly with the introduction of features like Project Loom for simplifying concurrency—could shift the maintainability dynamics.

• Ultimately, the choice between these frameworks should align not only with current project needs but also with the anticipated future requirements of the organization.

Conclusion

• In conclusion, the analysis affirms that both NestJS and Spring Boot present robust frameworks for developing scalable server-side applications, each excelling in different contexts. NestJS has emerged as a front-runner for lightweight, event-driven services, offering rapid development cycles that are ideal for high-throughput applications. Its strengths are particularly apparent in I/O-bound scenarios, where response times and concurrency management are critical. Meanwhile, Spring Boot's mature architecture provides comprehensive threading support and an extensive ecosystem of tools, making it especially suitable for complex enterprise systems requiring a stable performance framework. As organizations weigh their options, they must critically analyze benchmarked throughput, concurrency requirements, operational costs, and the existing expertise of their development teams to make an informed decision tailored to their specific needs. Looking forward, advancements in Java Virtual Machine (JVM) optimizations and the potential introduction of Node.js native modules are poised to further influence the competitive landscape between these frameworks. To ensure a future-proof architectural choice, teams would benefit from implementing pilot proof-of-concept phases, continuously monitoring real-world performance metrics, and carefully planning for the evolution of cloud-native architectures. Such proactive strategies will not only facilitate a more informed selection process but also enhance the ability to adapt to the dynamics of an ever-evolving technological landscape.

Glossary

• NestJS: A progressive Node.js framework for building efficient, scalable server-side applications using TypeScript. Its modular architecture encourages the decomposition of applications into cohesive modules, enhancing maintainability and team collaboration. As of May 2025, NestJS is recognized for its high performance in I/O-bound operations leveraging its non-blocking, event-driven nature.

• Spring Boot: An extension of the Spring framework that simplifies the setup and development of new Java applications. It follows a convention-over-configuration approach, reducing boilerplate code and configuration. As of May 2025, Spring Boot is favored for its robust support for enterprise applications, offering seamless integration with various Spring projects and enterprise-level capabilities.

• Throughput: A measure of the number of requests a system can handle in a given amount of time. As highlighted in May 2025, the throughput of NestJS surpasses that of Spring Boot in I/O-bound scenarios, demonstrating its capability to efficiently process numerous simultaneous requests.

• Latency: The time taken for a system to respond to a request. Testing in May 2025 indicates that NestJS consistently achieves lower latency under high concurrency conditions compared to Spring Boot, making it preferable for applications that require instant responsiveness.

• Microservices: An architectural style that structures an application as a collection of loosely coupled services, each representing a specific business capability. NestJS provides native support for building microservices, leveraging its modular architecture as of May 2025.

• Concurrency: The ability of a system to handle multiple tasks simultaneously. NestJS employs a single-threaded event-loop model for efficient asynchronous concurrency, while Spring Boot traditionally uses a thread-pool approach, which can lead to scalability challenges under high load as noted in ongoing analyses.

• REST API: An architectural style for designing networked applications using stateless communication. Both NestJS and Spring Boot support building RESTful services, with performance evaluations pointing to NestJS's superior handling of I/O-bound REST API endpoints as of May 2025.

• Benchmarking: The process of measuring the performance of different systems under standardized conditions. This report includes benchmarking methodologies that assess the throughput and latency of NestJS compared to Spring Boot, providing key insights as of May 2025.

• Dependency Injection (DI): A design pattern used to implement IoC (Inversion of Control), allowing a framework to manage the dependencies of components. Both NestJS and Spring Boot utilize DI to enhance code testability and modular design; however, the implementation varies significantly.

• Event-driven architecture: A software architecture pattern where the system responds to events, enabling applications to handle tasks asynchronously. NestJS's reliance on an event-driven model allows it to efficiently manage high volume, low-latency applications, marking a key strength as of May 2025.

• Threading: A method where a single process can have multiple threads of execution, allowing for concurrent operations. Spring Boot's traditional thread-per-request model can lead to resource contention under heavy loads, contrasting with NestJS's non-blocking model.

Source Documents

• Nest Js vs Spring Boot Comparison - Restackhttps://www.restack.io/p/nest-js-vs-spring-boot
• Node.js vs Java Web Performance - by Apurav Chauhanhttps://medium.com/@apuravchauhan/node-js-vs-java-web-performance-benchmark-analysis-scaling-insights-de2ce3998d18
• Mastering Threads in Spring Boot Java: From Basics ... - Mediumhttps://medium.com/@shalahuddinshanto/mastering-threads-in-spring-boot-java-from-basics-to-advanced-scenarios-0b0c9858140e
• Nestjs vs spring boot performance | Restackiohttps://www.restack.io/p/nestjs-vs-spring-boot-performance