compare · developer
Base64 vs Base62 Comparison
Compare Base64 vs Base62 encoding: character sets, URL safety, URL shorteners, and binary efficiency. Free online encoder and decoder.
Updated 2026-09-07
Use Base62 Encoder
Side-by-side comparison
| Factor | BASE64 | BASE62 |
|---|---|---|
| character_set | 64 chars (A-Z, a-z, 0-9, +, /) | 62 chars (A-Z, a-z, 0-9) |
| url_safety | Requires URL-safe variant (- and _) or %2B encoding | 100% natively URL-safe without escaping |
| padding | Uses = padding to align 24-bit blocks | No padding characters required |
| url_shorteners | Can produce punctuation that breaks in text messages | Industry standard for short links and YouTube-style IDs |
| cryptography_mime | Universal standard for PEM certs, JWTs, and email | Used primarily for token generation and IDs |
| density_efficiency | 6 bits per character (33% size expansion) | ~5.95 bits per character (slightly more compact) |
When to use which
- URL shorteners and slug generation: BASE62
- JWT tokens and binary API transmission: BASE64
- Query parameters without special escaping: BASE62
- Data URIs and image embedding in HTML/CSS: BASE64
FAQ
- Why is Base62 better for URLs than Base64?
- Base64 includes '+' and '/' characters, which have special meanings in URL query strings and paths, requiring percent-encoding (%2B and %2F). Base62 contains only A-Z, a-z, and 0-9, making it natively URL-safe without any escaping.
- Does Base62 use padding characters?
- No. Base64 requires '=' padding characters to align to 24-bit boundaries. Base62 converts values using arbitrary-precision mathematical base conversion without padding.
- Which is more compact, Base64 or Base62?
- Base64 is slightly more space-efficient for raw binary data (~6.0 bits per char vs ~5.95 bits for Base62), but Base62 saves space in URLs by avoiding percent-encoding.
- What are the most common uses for Base62?
- Base62 is the global standard for URL shorteners (like Bit.ly), unique tracking tokens, and alphanumeric database IDs (like YouTube video IDs).