NestJS vs. Laravel

Building a modern API means picking the right foundation. Two frameworks dominate today's backend conversations: NestJS brings TypeScript discipline to Node.js chaos, while Laravel makes PHP development feel like magic.

NestJS transforms how JavaScript developers think about server architecture. Instead of stitching together Express middleware and hoping for the best, you get dependency injection, decorators, and modules that actually make sense. It's what happens when Angular's best ideas meet backend development.

Laravel solved PHP's reputation problem by making complex tasks stupidly simple. Want user authentication? One command. Need job queues? Built-in. Database migrations? Handled. It's the framework that convinced developers PHP could be enjoyable.

Your choice between them shapes everything: development speed, team structure, and long-term maintenance burden. Here's how to pick the right one for your project.

What is NestJS?

JavaScript backend development was a mess for years. You'd start with Express, add some middleware, maybe throw in TypeScript, and inevitably end up with a pile of spaghetti code that nobody wanted to maintain.

NestJS fixed this by stealing the best ideas from other ecosystems. The module system comes from Angular. Dependency injection comes from .NET and Spring. Decorators come from modern TypeScript. Put it all together and you get structure where there used to be chaos.

The real win happens when you stop fighting with configuration and start writing business logic. Your controllers know exactly what they depend on. Your services get injected automatically. Your types are enforced at compile time. It's what enterprise developers have enjoyed for years, finally available in the JavaScript world.

What is Laravel?

PHP had an image problem. Developers associated it with messy WordPress code and security vulnerabilities. Laravel changed that perception by proving PHP could be elegant, secure, and productive.

The framework makes assumptions about what you're building and optimizes for those common cases. Most web apps need user authentication, so Laravel includes it. Most apps send emails, so the mail system is built-in. Most apps need background jobs, so queues are ready to go.

But Laravel's real achievement is developer experience. The syntax reads like English. The error messages actually help. The documentation teaches instead of just documenting. It's a framework designed by someone who remembered what it felt like to be frustrated by bad tools.

Framework comparison

These frameworks solve different problems, which means they're built for different types of projects and developers. Your choice shapes how you'll spend your time coding.

Your choice often comes down to team background and project requirements. If your team knows TypeScript and you're building microservices, NestJS makes sense. If you want to ship features quickly and your team is comfortable with PHP, Laravel wins.

Getting started

The first few hours with each framework reveal their personalities. NestJS feels like joining an established architecture team. Laravel feels like having a productive pair programming session.

NestJS builds projects like enterprise applications, with clear separation of concerns:

npm install -g @nestjs/cli
nest new my-api
cd my-api && npm run start:dev

The generated project structure looks familiar if you've used Angular or Spring Boot:

src/
├── app.controller.ts
├── app.module.ts
├── app.service.ts
└── main.ts

Your first API endpoint requires multiple files but follows predictable patterns:

// users.controller.ts
@Controller('users')
export class UsersController {
  constructor(private usersService: UsersService) {}

  @Get()
  findAll(): User[] {
    return this.usersService.findAll();
  }

  @Post()
  create(@Body() createUserDto: CreateUserDto): User {
    return this.usersService.create(createUserDto);
  }
}

@Injectable()
export class UsersService {
  private users: User[] = [];

  findAll(): User[] {
    return this.users;
  }

  create(userData: CreateUserDto): User {
    const user = { id: Date.now(), ...userData };
    this.users.push(user);
    return user;
  }
}

// users.module.ts
@Module({
  controllers: [UsersController],
  providers: [UsersService],
})
export class UsersModule {}

Everything has its place. Controllers handle HTTP requests and delegate to services. Services contain business logic and can be injected into controllers. Modules wire dependencies together. The structure forces you to think about architecture from day one, which pays dividends as your application grows.

The CLI generates boilerplate but requires you to understand the patterns:

nest generate controller users
nest generate service users  
nest generate module users

Each command creates files with the right decorators and imports, but you need to wire them together manually. This explicit wiring means you understand exactly how your application is structured.

Laravel gets you building features immediately:

composer create-project laravel/laravel my-api
cd my-api && php artisan serve

The project structure is flatter and more intuitive:

app/
├── Http/Controllers/
├── Models/
├── Services/
routes/
├── api.php
└── web.php

One Artisan command builds entire features:

php artisan make:model User -mcr

This creates:

• User model (with database relationships)
• Migration file (defines database schema)
• Controller (with CRUD methods pre-built)
• Resource class (for API responses)

The generated controller gives you working endpoints immediately:

class UserController extends Controller
{
    public function index()
    {
        return UserResource::collection(User::all());
    }

    public function store(Request $request)
    {
        $user = User::create($request->validated());
        return new UserResource($user);
    }

    public function show(User $user)
    {
        return new UserResource($user);
    }
}

Laravel assumes you want REST endpoints and gives them to you. Route model binding automatically finds the User by ID. Resource classes format JSON responses consistently. Validation happens through form request classes that you can customize as needed.

The difference in philosophy becomes clear immediately. NestJS says "let's build this properly with clear separation of concerns." Laravel says "let's get this working, then refine what we need." Both approaches lead to maintainable code, but they feel completely different to write.

Database integration

Database work reveals the core differences between these frameworks. NestJS treats the database as something you need to manage explicitly, while Laravel tries to make it disappear into readable code.

NestJS gives you choices but requires decisions. TypeORM works like JPA for Java developers, with decorators defining your schema:

@Entity()
export class User {
  @PrimaryGeneratedColumn()
  id: number;

  @Column({ unique: true })
  email: string;

  @Column()
  name: string;

  @OneToMany(() => Post, post => post.author)
  posts: Post[];

  @CreateDateColumn()
  createdAt: Date;
}

@Injectable()
export class UsersService {
  constructor(
    @InjectRepository(User)
    private userRepo: Repository<User>
  ) {}

  async findByEmail(email: string) {
    return this.userRepo.findOne({ 
      where: { email },
      relations: ['posts'] 
    });
  }

  async createUser(userData: CreateUserDto) {
    const user = this.userRepo.create(userData);
    return this.userRepo.save(user);
  }
}

TypeORM's approach means your TypeScript classes define your database structure. Change a property type, generate a migration, and your database schema updates to match. The repository pattern gives you type-safe queries that catch errors at compile time. You write findOne({ where: { email } }) and TypeScript knows exactly what properties are available.

Modern NestJS projects increasingly choose Prisma for even better TypeScript integration:

// schema.prisma
model User {
  id        Int      @id @default(autoincrement())
  email     String   @unique
  name      String
  posts     Post[]
  createdAt DateTime @default(now())
}

// users.service.ts
async findUserWithPosts(email: string) {
  return this.prisma.user.findUnique({ 
    where: { email },
    include: { posts: true }
  });
}

Prisma generates a client that knows your exact database schema. Your IDE autocompletes field names, catches typos, and prevents you from querying non-existent relationships. The trade-off is learning another tool and dealing with generated code.

Laravel makes database work feel natural with Eloquent ORM:

class User extends Model
{
    protected $fillable = ['name', 'email'];

    protected $hidden = ['password'];

    public function posts()
    {
        return $this->hasMany(Post::class);
    }

    public function publishedPosts()
    {
        return $this->posts()->where('published', true);
    }
}

// Usage reads like English
$user = User::where('email', $email)->first();
$posts = $user->posts()->published()->latest()->get();
$count = $user->publishedPosts()->count();

Eloquent's strength lies in its conventions and dynamic relationships. Define a posts() method that returns hasMany(Post::class), and Laravel automatically figures out the foreign key should be user_id. Access $user->posts and Laravel loads the relationship automatically. Chain methods like published()->latest() and Laravel builds the SQL query behind the scenes.

Laravel also handles the mundane database tasks that NestJS makes you think about:

// Migration files define schema changes
Schema::create('users', function (Blueprint $table) {
    $table->id();
    $table->string('email')->unique();
    $table->string('name');
    $table->timestamps();
});

// Factory classes generate test data
User::factory()->count(10)->create();

// Seeders populate your database
DB::table('users')->insert([
    'name' => 'Admin User',
    'email' => 'admin@example.com',
]);

The contrast is striking. NestJS makes you explicit about relationships, queries, and data mapping. You understand exactly what SQL gets generated. Laravel hides that complexity behind readable methods, letting you think in terms of your business logic instead of database mechanics.

For complex queries, NestJS developers write repository methods with explicit query builders. Laravel developers chain Eloquent methods that read like natural language. Both approaches work, but they create completely different development experiences.

Authentication and security

Authentication reveals how differently these frameworks approach common problems. NestJS gives you building blocks to construct exactly what you need. Laravel gives you working solutions that handle the common cases automatically.

NestJS uses guards and strategies for authentication. The system is inspired by Passport.js but integrated into the dependency injection container:

@Injectable()
export class JwtStrategy extends PassportStrategy(Strategy) {
  constructor(private userService: UserService) {
    super({
      jwtFromRequest: ExtractJwt.fromAuthHeaderAsBearerToken(),
      secretOrKey: process.env.JWT_SECRET,
    });
  }

  async validate(payload: any) {
    const user = await this.userService.findById(payload.sub);
    if (!user) throw new UnauthorizedException();
    return user;
  }
}

@Controller('posts')
@UseGuards(AuthGuard('jwt'))
export class PostsController {
  @Post()
  @UseGuards(PostOwnershipGuard)
  create(@Request() req, @Body() createDto: CreatePostDto) {
    return this.postsService.create(createDto, req.user.id);
  }
}

// Custom authorization logic
@Injectable()
export class PostOwnershipGuard implements CanActivate {
  async canActivate(context: ExecutionContext): Promise<boolean> {
    const request = context.switchToHttp().getRequest();
    const postId = request.params.id;
    const userId = request.user.id;

    const post = await this.postsService.findById(postId);
    return post?.authorId === userId;
  }
}

This approach makes authentication very explicit. The @UseGuards() decorator tells you exactly which protection applies to each route. Guards can access the full execution context, making complex authorization logic straightforward to implement. You can stack multiple guards, create custom ones, and combine authentication with business logic.

The downside? You write a lot more code. Setting up JWT authentication means configuring strategies, guards, modules, and often custom decorators. But you understand exactly what's happening at each step.

Laravel makes authentication almost invisible with built-in tools:

// Built-in authentication scaffolding
php artisan make:auth
php artisan migrate

// API token authentication with Sanctum
class AuthController extends Controller
{
    public function login(Request $request)
    {
        if (Auth::attempt($request->only('email', 'password'))) {
            $token = auth()->user()->createToken('api-token')->plainTextToken;
            return response()->json(['token' => $token]);
        }

        return response()->json(['error' => 'Invalid credentials'], 401);
    }
}

// Protect routes with middleware
Route::middleware('auth:sanctum')->group(function () {
    Route::apiResource('posts', PostController::class);
});

class PostController extends Controller
{
    public function update(UpdatePostRequest $request, Post $post)
    {
        // Authorization happens automatically via policies
        $this->authorize('update', $post);

        $post->update($request->validated());
        return new PostResource($post);
    }
}

// Authorization policies read like natural language
class PostPolicy
{
    public function update(User $user, Post $post)
    {
        return $user->id === $post->author_id;
    }

    public function delete(User $user, Post $post)
    {
        return $user->id === $post->author_id || $user->isAdmin();
    }
}

Laravel's strength is making the common cases trivial. The auth() helper gives you the current user anywhere. Sanctum provides API token authentication with minimal configuration. Policies let you write authorization logic that reads like business rules rather than technical code.

Laravel handles security concerns you might forget: CSRF protection is enabled by default, passwords are hashed automatically, and session management is built-in. The framework assumes you want these protections and enables them unless you explicitly opt out.

The contrast is striking. NestJS says "here are the tools to build exactly what you need." Laravel says "here's what most apps need, pre-built and ready to go." Both approaches work, but they create very different development experiences.

Testing approach

Testing approach separates these frameworks more than any other aspect. NestJS embraces unit testing with mocked dependencies, while Laravel prefers full-stack testing with real database interactions.

NestJS emphasizes unit testing with dependency injection making mocking straightforward:

describe('UsersService', () => {
  let service: UsersService;
  let mockRepository: jest.Mocked<Repository<User>>;

  beforeEach(async () => {
    const mockRepo = {
      findOne: jest.fn(),
      save: jest.fn(),
      create: jest.fn(),
    };

    const module = await Test.createTestingModule({
      providers: [
        UsersService,
        { provide: getRepositoryToken(User), useValue: mockRepo }
      ],
    }).compile();

    service = module.get<UsersService>(UsersService);
    mockRepository = module.get(getRepositoryToken(User));
  });

  it('should find user by email', async () => {
    const mockUser = { id: 1, email: 'test@example.com', name: 'Test' };
    mockRepository.findOne.mockResolvedValue(mockUser as User);

    const result = await service.findByEmail('test@example.com');

    expect(mockRepository.findOne).toHaveBeenCalledWith({
      where: { email: 'test@example.com' }
    });
    expect(result).toEqual(mockUser);
  });
}

This approach isolates each service completely. Your tests run in milliseconds because they never touch a database. TypeScript ensures your mocks match the real interfaces, catching breaking changes immediately. The Test.createTestingModule() creates a clean dependency injection container for each test, preventing side effects between tests.

NestJS also supports integration testing for full request/response cycles:

describe('PostsController (e2e)', () => {
  let app: INestApplication;

  beforeEach(async () => {
    const module = await Test.createTestingModule({
      imports: [AppModule],
    }).compile();

    app = module.createNestApplication();
    await app.init();
  });

  it('should create post when authenticated', () => {
    return request(app.getHttpServer())
      .post('/posts')
      .set('Authorization', 'Bearer ' + validToken)
      .send({ title: 'Test Post', content: 'Test content' })
      .expect(201)
      .expect(res => {
        expect(res.body.title).toBe('Test Post');
      });
  });
});

The downside is complexity. Setting up mocks for services with multiple dependencies becomes verbose. You spend time writing test setup that doesn't directly test business logic. But your tests run fast and catch regressions reliably.

Laravel focuses on full-stack testing with real database interactions:

class PostTest extends TestCase
{
    use RefreshDatabase;

    public function test_user_can_create_post()
    {
        $user = User::factory()->create();

        $response = $this->actingAs($user)
                         ->postJson('/api/posts', [
                             'title' => 'Test Post',
                             'content' => 'This is test content for the post.'
                         ]);

        $response->assertStatus(201)
                 ->assertJsonFragment(['title' => 'Test Post']);

        $this->assertDatabaseHas('posts', [
            'title' => 'Test Post',
            'author_id' => $user->id
        ]);
    }

    public function test_validates_required_fields()
    {
        $user = User::factory()->create();

        $response = $this->actingAs($user)
                         ->postJson('/api/posts', ['title' => '']);

        $response->assertStatus(422)
                 ->assertJsonValidationErrors(['title', 'content']);
    }

    public function test_user_cannot_edit_others_posts()
    {
        $author = User::factory()->create();
        $otherUser = User::factory()->create();
        $post = Post::factory()->create(['author_id' => $author->id]);

        $response = $this->actingAs($otherUser)
                         ->patchJson("/api/posts/{$post->id}", [
                             'title' => 'Hacked title'
                         ]);

        $response->assertStatus(403);
    }
}

Laravel's approach tests the entire request flow: routing, middleware, validation, authorization, database changes, and response formatting. The RefreshDatabase trait ensures each test starts with a clean database. Factory classes create realistic test data with relationships intact.

Laravel also includes model testing for business logic:

public function test_post_belongs_to_author()
{
    $user = User::factory()->create();
    $post = Post::factory()->create(['author_id' => $user->id]);

    $this->assertInstanceOf(User::class, $post->author);
    $this->assertEquals($user->name, $post->author->name);
}

public function test_published_scope_filters_correctly()
{
    Post::factory()->create(['published' => true]);
    Post::factory()->create(['published' => false]);

    $published = Post::published()->get();

    $this->assertCount(1, $published);
    $this->assertTrue($published->first()->published);
}

The Laravel approach catches integration bugs that unit tests miss. When your authentication middleware, validation rules, and database constraints work together, you know the feature actually works. But tests run slower and can be brittle when database schema changes.

The fundamental difference reflects each framework's core beliefs. NestJS says "test each component in isolation for fast, reliable feedback." Laravel says "test the user experience end-to-end to ensure everything actually works." Both approaches have merit, and many teams use a combination.

Background jobs

Background processing shows how these frameworks handle complexity differently. NestJS gives you advanced tools that require setup. Laravel gives you working solutions with sensible defaults.

NestJS uses Bull queues with Redis for enterprise-grade job processing:

@Module({
  imports: [
    BullModule.registerQueue({
      name: 'email-queue',
      redis: { host: 'localhost', port: 6379 },
    }),
  ],
})
export class EmailModule {}

@Processor('email-queue')
export class EmailProcessor {
  @Process('welcome-email')
  async sendWelcomeEmail(job: Job<{ userId: number; email: string }>) {
    const { userId, email } = job.data;

    try {
      await this.emailService.send(email, 'welcome-template');
      console.log(`Welcome email sent to ${email}`);
    } catch (error) {
      console.error(`Failed to send email to ${email}:`, error);
      throw error; // Bull will retry automatically
    }
  }

  @OnQueueFailed()
  onFailed(job: Job, err: Error) {
    console.log(`Job ${job.id} failed: ${err.message}`);
  }
}

@Injectable()
export class UserService {
  constructor(@InjectQueue('email-queue') private emailQueue: Queue) {}

  async createUser(userData: CreateUserDto) {
    const user = await this.userRepo.save(userData);

    // Queue welcome email with retry logic
    await this.emailQueue.add('welcome-email', {
      userId: user.id,
      email: user.email,
    }, {
      attempts: 3,
      backoff: { type: 'exponential', delay: 2000 },
      delay: 5000, // Wait 5 seconds before sending
    });

    return user;
  }
}

NestJS job processing is advanced but requires setup. You configure Redis connections, define processors with decorators, and wire everything through modules. The payoff is fine-grained control: you can set different retry policies per job type, monitor queue performance, and handle failures with custom logic.

Bull includes enterprise-level functionality like job prioritization, rate limiting, and distributed processing. You can pause queues, retry failed jobs, and get detailed metrics. But you need to understand Redis, manage queue workers, and handle deployment complexity.

Laravel includes job queues that work out of the box:

// Job class - just implement ShouldQueue
class SendWelcomeEmail implements ShouldQueue
{
    use Dispatchable, InteractsWithQueue, Queueable;

    public $tries = 3;
    public $backoff = [30, 60, 120]; // Retry delays in seconds

    protected $user;

    public function __construct(User $user)
    {
        $this->user = $user;
    }

    public function handle()
    {
        Mail::to($this->user->email)->send(new WelcomeMail($this->user));

        Log::info("Welcome email sent to {$this->user->email}");
    }

    public function failed(Throwable $exception)
    {
        Log::error("Welcome email failed for user {$this->user->id}: {$exception->getMessage()}");

        // Notify administrators or take corrective action
        Notification::send(
            User::administrators(), 
            new JobFailedNotification($this->user, $exception)
        );
    }
}

// Usage in controllers - dispatch and forget
class UserController extends Controller
{
    public function store(CreateUserRequest $request)
    {
        $user = User::create($request->validated());

        // Queue the welcome email
        SendWelcomeEmail::dispatch($user);

        return new UserResource($user);
    }
}

// Delayed jobs and chains
SendWelcomeEmail::dispatch($user)->delay(now()->addMinutes(5));

// Job chains - run jobs in sequence
Bus::chain([
    new SendWelcomeEmail($user),
    new AddToNewsletterList($user),
    new NotifyAdministrators($user),
])->dispatch();

Laravel's approach hides the complexity. Jobs are just classes with a handle() method. Laravel serializes Eloquent models automatically, handles retry logic based on class properties, and includes sensible defaults for most use cases.

For scheduled tasks, Laravel replaces cron jobs with readable PHP code:

// app/Console/Kernel.php
protected function schedule(Schedule $schedule)
{
    // Send newsletter every Monday at 9 AM
    $schedule->job(new SendWeeklyNewsletter)->weeklyOn(1, '9:00');

    // Clean up old logs daily
    $schedule->call(function () {
        Log::info('Cleaning up old log files');
        Storage::delete(Storage::files('logs'));
    })->daily();

    // Process failed jobs every hour
    $schedule->command('queue:retry all')->hourly();

    // Database cleanup with conditional execution
    $schedule->call(function () {
        User::whereNull('email_verified_at')
            ->where('created_at', '<', now()->subDays(7))
            ->delete();
    })->daily()->when(function () {
        return config('app.env') === 'production';
    });
}

Laravel's scheduler runs through a single cron entry that executes php artisan schedule:run every minute. The framework handles timing, overlap prevention, and output logging. You write business logic, not cron syntax.

The fundamental difference is abstraction level. NestJS gives you Redis queues, job processors, and lifecycle hooks. These are the building blocks for any job system you can imagine. Laravel gives you working job queues that handle the common cases automatically, with escape hatches for complex requirements.

Both approaches handle production workloads well. NestJS grows through explicit resource management and distributed workers. Laravel grows through Horizon (a beautiful queue monitoring dashboard), job batching, and cloud queue services. Your choice depends on whether you prefer configuring infrastructure or writing business logic.

Final thoughts

Both frameworks handle production traffic well. NestJS grows through microservices and TypeScript discipline that prevents bugs. Laravel grows through caching, queues, and horizontal deployment strategies. Your team's experience and project requirements matter more than theoretical performance differences.

The real question isn't which framework is better. It's which one matches how your team thinks about building software. NestJS feels like working with enterprise Java tools but in the JavaScript ecosystem. Laravel feels like having a senior developer pair with you, handling the tedious parts so you can focus on features.

Try building the same small API in both frameworks. You'll quickly discover which approach fits your brain and your project's needs.

Got an article suggestion? Let us know

Next article

NestJS vs. Ruby on Rails

Compare NestJS’s TypeScript structure with Rails’ conventions. See setup, database tools, auth, testing, and deployment to pick the best fit for your team.

→

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.