Below is a detailed comparison table between both the entities from security, compatibility, reliability, and SOAP version perspectives.
| Criteria |
BasicHttpBinding |
WsHttpBinding |
| Security support |
This supports the old ASMX style, i.e., WS-BasicProfile 1.1. |
This exposes web services using WS-* specifications. |
| Compatibility |
This is aimed for clients who do not have .NET 3.0 installed and it supports wider ranges of clients. Many of the clients like Windows 2000 still do not run .NET 3.0. So an older version of .NET can consume this service. |
As it is built using WS-* specifications, it does not support wider ranges of clients and it cannot be consumed by older .NET versions less than 3 version. |
| SOAP version |
SOAP 1.1 |
SOAP 1.2 and WS-Addressing specification. |
| Reliable messaging |
Not supported. In other words, if a client fires two or three calls you really do not know if they will return back in the same order. |
Supported as it supports WS-* specifications. |
| Default security options |
By default, there is no security provided for messages when the client calls happen. In other words, data is sent as plain text. |
As WsHttBinding supports WS-*, it has WS-Security enabled by default. So the data is not sent in plain text. |
| Security options |
• None
• Windows – default authentication
• Basic
• Certificate |
• None
• Transport
• Message
• Transport with message credentials |
One of the biggest differences you must have noticed is the security aspect. Bydefault, BasicHttpBinding sends data in plain text while WsHttpBinding sends it in an encrypted and secured manner. To demonstrate the same, let's make two services, one using BasicHttpBinding and the other using WsHttpBinding and then let's see the security aspect in a more detailed manner.
