UART vs SPI: A Comprehensive Comparison for Embedded Systems

author avatar

26 Apr, 2023

UART vs SPI: A Comprehensive Comparison for Embedded Systems

This article provides a comprehensive comparison between UART and SPI by delving into their working principles, advantages, disadvantages, and other factors that influence their performance in embedded systems. By the end of this article, you will have a better understanding of these communication protocols and be able to make an informed decision when selecting the right protocol for your project.


Communication protocols play a crucial role in the world of embedded systems, enabling various components to exchange data and work together seamlessly. Two popular communication protocols that engineers often use in their designs are UART (Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter) and SPI (Serial Peripheral Interface). Both protocols have their unique advantages and disadvantages, making it essential to understand their differences to choose the best-suited option for a specific application.

An Overview and Basics of UART:

UART stands for Universal Asynchronous Receiver/Transmitter, is a widely used serial communication protocol in embedded systems. It facilitates the transmission and reception of data between two devices without the need for a clock signal to synchronize the communication process. UART's simplicity and ease of implementation have made it a popular choice for many applications, including microcontrollers, sensors, and GPS modules.

The fundamental concept of UART communication is the transmission of data in the form of bits, with each bit sent sequentially over a single wire. The data is sent using a specific format that includes start and stop bits, data bits, and an optional parity bit for error detection. The start bit signals the beginning of the data transmission, while the stop bit indicates the end. The data bits, typically ranging from 5 to 9 bits, represent the actual information being sent. The parity bit, if used, helps detect errors by ensuring that the total number of 1s in the data frame is either even or odd, depending on the chosen parity scheme (even or odd parity).

In a UART communication system, both the transmitter and receiver devices must be configured to use the same data format and baud rate (the number of bits transmitted per second) to ensure accurate data transmission. The absence of a clock signal means that the devices rely solely on the agreed-upon baud rate to synchronize the data exchange. This asynchronous nature of UART communication allows for flexibility in system design but may also introduce potential issues with noise and timing errors if the devices' baud rates are not precisely matched.

Example of UART in Microcontrollers:

USB CP2102 Serial Converter Highly integrated USB to UART bridge controller providing a simple solution for updating RS-232 designs to USB using minimum components and PCB space. It provides USB connectivity to devices with a UART interface. It uses a standard USB type A male and TTL 6pin connector This USB CP2102 Serial Converter is a small adapter for Arduino/Seeeduino board to accept firmware upgrades from a computer.

SPI: Overview and Basics

SPI, short for Serial Peripheral Interface, is another popular communication protocol used in embedded systems. Unlike UART, SPI is a synchronous communication protocol that relies on a clock signal to coordinate data exchange between devices. SPI is widely used in applications where higher data transfer speeds and support for multiple devices are required, such as memory chips, display controllers, and sensor networks.

The SPI protocol is based on a master/slave configuration, with one master device controlling the communication and one or more slave devices receiving and transmitting data. The key components of SPI communication include:

  1. Master/Slave Configuration: The master device generates the clock signal and initiates data exchange with the slave devices. Each slave device has a unique chip select (CS) line controlled by the master to enable communication with a specific slave.

  2. Clock Signal (SCLK): The master device generates the clock signal, which synchronizes the data exchange between the master and slave devices. The clock frequency can be adjusted to achieve different data transfer rates.

  3. Data Lines (MOSI and MISO): SPI communication uses two data lines: Master Output Slave Input (MOSI) and Master Input Slave Output (MISO). The MOSI line is used to transmit data from the master to the slave, while the MISO line is used for data transmission from the slave to the master.

  4. Chip Select (CS) Lines: Each slave device has a unique chip select line that the master uses to enable communication with a specific slave. The master pulls the CS line low to select the corresponding slave device and initiate data exchange.

Example of SPI in Microcontrollers:

Microcontrollers that use SPI include the SPI Seeeduino V4.2. Arduino can be used with SPI serial communication to communicate between two Arduinos, one of which will serve as the master and the other as the slave. used for rapid, short-distance communication.

SPI's synchronous nature and support for multiple devices make it suitable for a wide range of applications, from data storage and retrieval in memory chips to controlling displays and interfacing with sensor networks. However, its increased complexity and wiring requirements compared to UART may be a consideration when choosing a communication protocol for a specific project.

UART and SPI: A Comparison

In this section, we will take a closer look at the differences between UART and SPI in terms of speed, topology, complexity and more. While both protocols are commonly used for serial communication, understanding their respective strengths and weaknesses is essential for selecting the right protocol for your specific needs. Whether you're a developer working with microcontrollers or a hobbyist looking to build your own electronic devices, understanding the differences between UART and SPI can help you make informed decisions about how to design and implement your projects.

UART vs SPI: Data Transfer Speed

One of the most significant differences between UART and SPI communication protocols is their data transfer speed. While both protocols can be adjusted to accommodate different data rates, SPI generally offers higher data transfer speeds compared to UART.

UART's data transfer speed is determined by the baud rate, which is the number of bits transmitted per second. The lack of a clock signal and the requirement for start and stop bits in each data frame can limit the maximum achievable data rate. As the baud rate increases, the asynchronous nature of UART communication makes it more susceptible to noise and timing errors, further limiting its speed potential.

On the other hand, SPI's synchronous communication relies on a clock signal generated by the master device to synchronize data exchange. This clock signal allows SPI to achieve higher data transfer rates compared to UART. The clock frequency can be adjusted to achieve different data rates, making SPI suitable for a wide range of applications, from low-speed communication to high-speed data exchange.

However, it's essential to consider the specific requirements of your application when choosing between UART and SPI. While SPI may offer higher data transfer speeds, its increased complexity and potential noise issues may not be suitable for all applications. Conversely, UART's simplicity and flexibility may be more appropriate for applications with lower data rate requirements or where ease of implementation is a priority.

The asynchronous nature of UART communication allows for flexibility in system design The asynchronous nature of UART communication allows for flexibility in system design. 

UART vs SPI: Communication Topology

Another key difference between UART and SPI communication protocols is their communication topology, which refers to the way devices are connected and interact with each other in a system.

UART communication is primarily designed for point-to-point communication between two devices. This simple topology makes UART suitable for applications where only two devices need to exchange data. While it is possible to implement a multi-device network using UART, this approach requires additional hardware and software complexity, making UART less scalable compared to other protocols like SPI or I2C that support multiple devices natively.

In contrast, SPI uses a master/slave configuration, where one master device controls the communication with multiple slave devices. The master generates the clock signal and initiates data exchange with the slaves using individual chip select lines. This topology enables SPI to support communication with multiple devices simultaneously, making it more scalable for applications involving numerous peripherals.

The choice between UART and SPI based on communication topology depends on the specific requirements of your application. If you need a simple, point-to-point communication between two devices, UART may be more suitable. However, if your application involves multiple devices that need to communicate with a central controller, SPI's master/slave configuration and support for multiple devices may be a better choice.

Recommended Reading: How to Get the Most out of Topology Optimization

UART vs SPI: Software Complexity

UART communication typically involves less software complexity compared to SPI. The straightforward implementation of UART and its point-to-point topology make it relatively easy to set up and manage communication between two devices. Most microcontrollers and embedded systems platforms provide built-in support for UART, along with libraries and example code, simplifying the development process.

On the other hand, SPI communication can be more complex in terms of software implementation, particularly when dealing with multiple devices and managing chip select lines. Designers must develop custom software routines to handle communication with multiple slave devices, manage chip select lines, and ensure proper data exchange synchronization. This added complexity may increase development time and require more advanced programming skills.

However, it's worth noting that many microcontrollers and embedded systems platforms also provide built-in support for SPI communication, along with libraries and example code, which can help mitigate some of the software complexity.

When deciding between UART and SPI, consider the software complexity and its impact on your development process. If ease of implementation and minimal software complexity are priorities, UART may be a better choice. However, if your application requires support for multiple devices and higher data transfer speeds, the increased software complexity of SPI may be an acceptable trade-off.

UART vs SPI: Hardware Complexity

UART communication is generally simpler in terms of hardware requirements, as it only needs two wires (transmit and receive) for communication between devices. This minimal wiring reduces the complexity of the system and can make UART easier to implement in various applications. Additionally, UART's point-to-point topology means that there is no need for additional hardware, such as chip select lines or clock signals, further simplifying the system design.

In contrast, SPI communication requires more wiring and hardware components. An SPI system uses separate data lines (MOSI and MISO), a clock signal (SCLK), and individual chip select lines for each slave device. This increased wiring complexity can impact system design, cost, and board space, especially when dealing with a large number of devices. Furthermore, the master/slave configuration and support for multiple devices in SPI systems can introduce additional complexity in managing chip select lines and synchronizing data exchange between devices.

When deciding between UART and SPI, consider the hardware complexity and its implications on your specific application. If simplicity and minimal wiring are priorities, UART may be a more suitable choice. However, if your application requires higher data transfer speeds and support for multiple devices, the increased hardware complexity of SPI may be a worthwhile trade-off.

When deciding between UART and SPI, consider the hardware complexity and its implications on your specific applicationWhen deciding between UART and SPI, consider the hardware complexity and its implications on your specific application

UART vs SPI: Error Handling and Reliability

UART communication offers basic error checking through the optional parity bit. By including a parity bit in the data frame, UART can detect single-bit errors in the transmitted data. However, it's important to note that UART does not provide any built-in error correction mechanism. If an error is detected, the application layer must handle the error, which can increase software complexity and development time.

In contrast, SPI communication does not include built-in error detection mechanisms like parity bits. This lack of error detection means that designers must implement their own error detection and handling techniques at the application level, potentially increasing software complexity. However, SPI's synchronous communication and continuous clock signal can help reduce the likelihood of timing errors and improve overall data transmission reliability compared to asynchronous protocols like UART.

When evaluating UART and SPI in terms of error handling and reliability, consider the specific requirements of your application and the potential impact of errors on system performance. If basic error detection is sufficient and simplicity is a priority, UART may be a suitable choice. However, if your application demands higher reliability and you are willing to implement custom error handling techniques, SPI's synchronous communication may provide a more robust solution.

UART vs SPI: Power Consumption

Power consumption is another critical factor to consider when comparing UART and SPI communication protocols, especially in power-sensitive applications like battery-powered devices and energy-harvesting systems.

UART communication generally consumes less power than SPI due to its asynchronous nature and the absence of a continuous clock signal. The power consumption in UART systems is mainly determined by the baud rate and the number of active communication lines. Lowering the baud rate and reducing the number of active lines can help minimize power consumption in UART systems.

On the other hand, SPI communication typically consumes more power due to its higher data transfer rates and continuous clock signal. The power consumption in SPI systems is influenced by factors such as clock frequency, data transfer rate, and the number of active devices. Reducing the clock frequency and minimizing the number of active devices can help lower power consumption in SPI systems. However, these adjustments may also impact the data transfer speed and system performance.

When choosing between UART and SPI based on power consumption, consider the specific power requirements of your application and the trade-offs between power consumption, data transfer speed, and system performance. If low power consumption is a priority and the data transfer speed requirements are modest, UART may be a more suitable choice. However, if your application demands higher data transfer speeds and you can accommodate the increased power consumption, SPI may be a better option.


When choosing between UART and SPI communication protocols for your embedded system, it's essential to carefully consider the specific requirements of your application and weigh the pros and cons of each protocol. UART offers simplicity, flexibility, and ease of implementation, making it suitable for point-to-point communication and applications with lower data rate requirements. On the other hand, SPI provides higher data transfer speeds, support for multiple devices, and full-duplex communication, making it more appropriate for high-speed applications and systems with numerous peripherals.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Can UART and SPI be used together in a single system? 

Yes, UART and SPI can be used together in a single system if the application requires the advantages of both protocols. Many microcontrollers support multiple communication interfaces, allowing designers to implement both UART and SPI communication in their projects.

2. How do I choose between UART and SPI for my project? 

Consider factors such as data transfer speed, communication topology, hardware and software complexity, error handling and reliability, and power consumption when choosing between UART and SPI. Evaluate the specific requirements of your application and weigh the pros and cons of each protocol to determine the best-suited option.

3. Are there any alternatives to UART and SPI for embedded systems communication? 

Yes, there are other communication protocols available for embedded systems, such as I2C (Inter-Integrated Circuit), CAN (Controller Area Network), and RS-485. Each protocol has its unique advantages and disadvantages, and the choice depends on the specific requirements of your application.

4. How does I2C compare to UART and SPI? 

I2C is another popular communication protocol used in embedded systems. It is a synchronous, multi-master, multi-slave protocol that uses only two wires (serial data line (SDL) and serial clock line(SCL)) for communication. I2C offers lower data transfer speeds compared to SPI but is more scalable and requires fewer wires than both UART and SPI.

5. Can UART or SPI be used for wireless communication? 

UART and SPI are primarily designed for wired communication between devices. However, they can be used for wireless communication by interfacing them with wireless modules, such as Bluetooth or Wi-Fi modules, which convert the UART or SPI data into wireless signals.


More by Saliha Malik

Welcome to my profile, where technology meets creativity! I'm a Computer Scientist from NUST, Pakistan. With over 5 years of writing experience and a strong background in AI/ML, IoT, Cloud and Data Science, I specialize in crafting content that bridges the gap between complex technical concepts an...

Wevolver 2023