Compare TOON and JSON formats to choose the right one for your needs
| Feature | TOON | JSON |
|---|---|---|
| Token Efficiency | 30-60% reduction | Standard |
| Human Readable | Yes | Yes |
| LLM Optimization | Optimized | Standard |
| Browser Support | Requires parser | Native |
| API Compatibility | Limited | Universal |
| File Size | Smaller | Larger |
| Syntax Complexity | Minimal | Standard |
{
"users": [
{
"id": 1,
"name": "Alice",
"role": "admin"
},
{
"id": 2,
"name": "Bob",
"role": "user"
}
]
}Token count: ~45 tokens
users[2]{id,name,role}:
1,Alice,admin
2,Bob,userToken count: ~18 tokens (60% reduction!)
When working with Large Language Models and need to reduce API costs by minimizing token usage.
When you need to reduce bandwidth and processing costs in API responses.
When working with arrays of objects that have the same structure (tabular data).
For internal systems where you control both encoding and decoding.
When building APIs that need universal compatibility and standard format support.
When you need native browser support without additional parsing libraries.
When working with deeply nested or irregular data structures.
When compliance with industry standards and widespread tooling support is required.
TOON achieves 30-60% token reduction by eliminating redundant syntax like brackets, braces, and repeated keys. This makes it ideal for LLM applications where token count directly impacts costs.
TOON uses indentation-based structures similar to YAML, while JSON uses explicit brackets and braces. TOON's tabular format for arrays is more compact than JSON's repeated object notation.
JSON has universal browser and API support, while TOON requires custom parsers. However, TOON can be easily converted to/from JSON, making it suitable for internal processing with JSON as the external interface.
JSON is the standard for web APIs and data exchange, while TOON excels in LLM applications, internal data processing, and scenarios where token efficiency is critical.