[COMPARISON] Base64 vs. Other Encodings
A comparison of Base64 with other common encodings like Base32, Base62, and URL encoding.
// Base64
Base64 uses a 64-character set (A-Z, a-z, 0-9, +, /) to represent binary data. It's the most common encoding for this purpose and is widely supported.
**Pros:** Very efficient, with a 33% size increase. Widely supported in all languages and platforms.
**Cons:** The character set is not always URL-safe.
// Base32
Base32 uses a 32-character set (A-Z, 2-7). It's often used in situations where case-insensitivity is important.
**Pros:** Case-insensitive, which can prevent errors in some systems. The character set is generally URL-safe.
**Cons:** Less efficient than Base64, with a size increase of about 60%.
// Base62
Base62 uses a 62-character set (A-Z, a-z, 0-9). It's ideal for use in URLs and other systems where the special characters of Base64 (+ and /) would be problematic.
**Pros:** URL-safe by default. The character set is alphanumeric only.
**Cons:** Slightly less efficient than Base64.
// URL Encoding (Percent-Encoding)
URL encoding is used to encode information in a URL. It replaces unsafe ASCII characters with a '%' followed by two hexadecimal digits.
**Pros:** The standard for encoding data in URLs.
**Cons:** Not as efficient as Base64 for encoding binary data. Can make URLs long and difficult to read.
// Comparison Table
| Encoding | Character Set | URL-Safe | Size Increase |
|---------------|---------------|----------|---------------|
| Base64 | 64 | No | ~33% |
| Base32 | 32 | Yes | ~60% |
| Base62 | 62 | Yes | ~35% |
| URL Encoding | N/A | Yes | Varies |// When to Use Which Encoding
- **Base64:** The default choice for embedding binary data in text-based formats like JSON or XML.
- **Base32:** Use when case-insensitivity is required, or when you need a more human-readable encoded string.
- **Base62:** The best choice for encoding data that will be used in a URL, such as a short URL or a token.
- **URL Encoding:** Use only for encoding data within a URL.