Speed matters. Especially when you're working with maps, web apps, or large datasets.
So, is GeoJSON faster than shapefile?
It depends on what you're doing and where you're doing it.
Let’s look at it from different angles.
Loading in web apps
In web browsers, GeoJSON is faster. Almost always.
That’s because GeoJSON is designed for the web. It works natively in tools like:
- Leaflet
- Mapbox
- OpenLayers
- Atlas
You don’t need to parse binary files or unzip anything. Just load the file, and the map works.
Shapefiles, on the other hand, are not supported directly in browsers.
To use them, you first need to:
- Zip the shapefile components
- Upload them
- Convert to GeoJSON or another web-friendly format
That adds time and complexity.
So for web apps, GeoJSON is clearly faster to load and use.
File size and transfer speed
When it comes to raw file size, shapefiles are usually smaller.
Because they are in binary format, they don’t repeat words or use plain text like GeoJSON does.
This means shapefiles transfer faster over slow networks.
But there’s a catch.
Shapefiles are made up of multiple files. You have to zip them before sending, and unzip them after.
GeoJSON is just one file. It can be compressed using gzip, which reduces size a lot.
And many web servers and browsers support gzip automatically.
So in practice, a compressed GeoJSON file often transfers just as fast as a zipped shapefile.
And once it’s received, GeoJSON loads instantly — no unpacking needed.
Rendering on the map
Rendering speed depends more on the number of features and complexity of the geometry than the format itself.
But even here, GeoJSON has the advantage in web tools.
Since many mapping libraries are built to handle GeoJSON directly, they can render it without extra processing.
Shapefiles need to be converted first. That step takes time.
Once the data is in memory, there's no big speed difference between formats. But getting it into memory is faster with GeoJSON— especially in browsers.
Desktop GIS performance
In desktop software like QGIS or ArcGIS, shapefiles are often faster to open and browse.
That’s because they’ve been optimized for these tools for decades.
Shapefiles load quickly in QGIS. Especially if you're working with very large datasets.
GeoJSON, being a text format, can take longer to parse. Desktop tools have to read and interpret the entire file line by line.
For massive files, this can slow things down.
So in desktop GIS tools, shapefiles are still faster in many cases.
Editing speed
If you're editing data in code or a text editor, GeoJSON is much faster to work with.
You can:
- Open the file in any editor
- See all attributes and geometry in plain text
- Copy/paste features easily
- Use JavaScript or Python to modify it
Shapefiles need special libraries like pyshp or ogr to edit. And they’re not human-readable.
So if you're coding or scripting, GeoJSON gives you a much faster workflow.
Summary
Here's a breakdown:
| Use case | Faster format |
|---|---|
| Loading in browser | GeoJSON |
| Transfer over slow network | Shapefile (maybe) |
| Rendering in web tools | GeoJSON |
| Opening in desktop GIS | Shapefile |
| Editing in code | GeoJSON |
The real answer
GeoJSON is faster where it counts most today — in web apps, APIs, and browser tools like Atlas.
Shapefiles still have the edge in older workflows and large-scale desktop GIS projects.
But if you're building anything for the web, GeoJSON wins on speed, simplicity, and ease of use.
And if you need to convert shapefiles to GeoJSON, you can do it in seconds using the Atlas converter.
