From Spring Documentation:

The @Repository annotation is a marker for any class that fulfils the role or stereotype of a repository (also known as Data Access Object or DAO). Among the uses of this marker is the automatic translation of exceptions, as described in Exception Translation.

Spring provides further stereotype annotations: @Component, @Service, and @Controller. @Component is a generic stereotype for any Spring-managed component. @Repository, @Service, and @Controller are specializations of @Component for more specific use cases (in the persistence, service, and presentation layers, respectively). Therefore, you can annotate your component classes with @Component, but, by annotating them with @Repository, @Service, or @Controller instead, your classes are more properly suited for processing by tools or associating with aspects.

For example, these stereotype annotations make ideal targets for pointcuts. @Repository, @Service, and @Controller can also carry additional semantics in future releases of the Spring Framework. Thus, if you are choosing between using @Component or @Service for your service layer, @Service is clearly the better choice. Similarly, as stated earlier, @Repository is already supported as a marker for automatic exception translation in your persistence layer.

As many of the answers already state what these annotations are used for, we'll here focus on some minor differences among them.

First the Similarity

First point worth highlighting again is that with respect to scan-auto-detection and dependency injection for BeanDefinition all these annotations (viz., @Component, @Service, @Repository, @Controller) are the same. We can use one in place of another and can still get our way around.

Differences between @Component, @Repository, @Controller and @Service

@Component

This is a general-purpose stereotype annotation indicating that the class is a spring component.

What’s special about @Component
<context:component-scan> only scans @Component and does not look for @Controller, @Service and @Repository in general. They are scanned because they themselves are annotated with @Component.

Just take a look at @Controller, @Service and @Repository annotation definitions:

@Component
public @interface Service {
    ….
}

@Component
public @interface Repository {
    ….
}

@Component
public @interface Controller {
    …
}

Thus, it’s not wrong to say that @Controller, @Service and @Repository are special types of @Component annotation. <context:component-scan> picks them up and registers their following classes as beans, just as if they were annotated with @Component.

Special type annotations are also scanned, because they themselves are annotated with @Component annotation, which means they are also @Components. If we define our own custom annotation and annotate it with @Component, it will also get scanned with <context:component-scan>

@Repository

This is to indicate that the class defines a data repository.

What’s special about @Repository?

In addition to pointing out, that this is an Annotation based Configuration, @Repository’s job is to catch platform specific exceptions and re-throw them as one of Spring’s unified unchecked exception. For this, we’re provided with PersistenceExceptionTranslationPostProcessor, that we are required to add in our Spring’s application context like this:

<bean class="org.springframework.dao.annotation.PersistenceExceptionTranslationPostProcessor"/>

This bean post processor adds an advisor to any bean that’s annotated with @Repository so that any platform-specific exceptions are caught and then re-thrown as one of Spring’s unchecked data access exceptions.

@Controller

The @Controller annotation indicates that a particular class serves the role of a controller. The @Controller annotation acts as a stereotype for the annotated class, indicating its role.

What’s special about @Controller?

We cannot switch this annotation with any other like @Service or @Repository, even though they look same. The dispatcher scans the classes annotated with @Controller and detects methods annotated with @RequestMapping annotations within them. We can use @RequestMapping on/in only those methods whose classes are annotated with @Controller and it will NOT work with @Component, @Service, @Repository etc...

_{Note: If a class is already registered as a bean through any alternate method, like through @Bean or through @Component, @Service etc... annotations, then @RequestMapping can be picked if the class is also annotated with @RequestMapping annotation. But that's a different scenario.}

@Service

@Service beans hold the business logic and call methods in the repository layer.

What’s special about @Service?

Apart from the fact that it's used to indicate, that it's holding the business logic, there’s nothing else noticeable in this annotation; but who knows, Spring may add some additional exceptional in future.

What else?

Similar to above, in the future Spring may add special functionalities for @Service, @Controller and @Repository based on their layering conventions. Hence, it's always a good idea to respect the convention and use it in line with layers.

They are almost the same - all of them mean that the class is a Spring bean. @Service, @Repository and @Controller are specialized @Components. You can choose to perform specific actions with them. For example:

• @Controller beans are used by spring-mvc
• @Repository beans are eligible for persistence exception translation

Another thing is that you designate the components semantically to different layers.

One thing that @Component offers is that you can annotate other annotations with it, and then use them the same way as @Service.

For example recently I made:

@Component
@Scope("prototype")
public @interface ScheduledJob {..}

So all classes annotated with @ScheduledJob are spring beans and in addition to that are registered as quartz jobs. You just have to provide code that handles the specific annotation.

@Component is equivalent to

<bean>

@Service, @Controller, @Repository = {@Component + some more special functionality}

That mean Service, The Controller and Repository are functionally the same.

The three annotations are used to separate "Layers" in your application,

• Controllers just do stuff like dispatching, forwarding, calling service methods etc.
• Service Hold business Logic, Calculations etc.
• Repository are the DAOs (Data Access Objects), they access the database directly.

Now you may ask why separate them: (I assume you know AOP-Aspect Oriented Programming)

Let's say you want to Monitors the Activity of the DAO Layer only. You will write an Aspect (A class) class that does some logging before and after every method of your DAO is invoked, you are able to do that using AOP as you have three distinct Layers and are not mixed.

So you can do logging of DAO "around", "before" or "after" the DAO methods. You could do that because you had a DAO in the first place. What you just achieved is Separation of concerns or tasks.

Imagine if there were only one annotation @Controller, then this component will have dispatching, business logic and accessing database all mixed, so dirty code!

Above mentioned is one very common scenario, there are many more use cases of why to use three annotations.

In Spring @Component, @Service, @Controller, and @Repository are Stereotype annotations which are used for:

@Controller: where your request mapping from presentation page done i.e. Presentation layer won't go to any other file it goes directly to @Controller class and checks for requested path in @RequestMapping annotation which written before method calls if necessary.

@Service: All business logic is here i.e. Data related calculations and all.This annotation of business layer in which our user not directly call persistence method so it will call this method using this annotation. It will request @Repository as per user request

@Repository: This is Persistence layer(Data Access Layer) of application which used to get data from the database. i.e. all the Database related operations are done by the repository.

@Component - Annotate your other components (for example REST resource classes) with a component stereotype.

Indicates that an annotated class is a "component". Such classes are considered as candidates for auto-detection when using annotation-based configuration and classpath scanning.

Other class-level annotations may be considered as identifying a component as well, typically a special kind of component: e.g. the @Repository annotation or AspectJ's @Aspect annotation.

Spring 2.5 introduces further stereotype annotations: @Component, @Service and @Controller. @Component serves as a generic stereotype for any Spring-managed component; whereas, @Repository, @Service, and @Controller serve as specializations of @Component for more specific use cases (e.g., in the persistence, service, and presentation layers, respectively). What this means is that you can annotate your component classes with @Component, but by annotating them with @Repository, @Service, or @Controller instead, your classes are more properly suited for processing by tools or associating with aspects. For example, these stereotype annotations make ideal targets for pointcuts. Of course, it is also possible that @Repository, @Service, and @Controller may carry additional semantics in future releases of the Spring Framework. Thus, if you are making a decision between using @Component or @Service for your service layer, @Service is clearly the better choice. Similarly, as stated above, @Repository is already supported as a marker for automatic exception translation in your persistence layer.

@Component – Indicates a auto scan component.
@Repository – Indicates DAO component in the persistence layer.
@Service – Indicates a Service component in the business layer.
@Controller – Indicates a controller component in the presentation layer.

reference :- Spring Documentation - Classpath scanning, managed components and writing configurations using Java

These are Stereotype annotations, candidate for autoscanning

Technically @Controller, @Service, @Repository are all same. All of them extends @Component.

From the Spring source code:

Indicates that an annotated class is a "component". Such classes are considered as candidates for auto-detection when using annotation-based configuration and classpath scanning.

We can directly use @Component for each and every bean, but for better understanding and maintainability of a large application, we use @Controller, @Service, @Repository.

Purpose of each annotation:

1. @Controller -> Classes annotated with this, are intended to receive a request from the client side. The first request comes to the Dispatcher Servlet, from where it passes the request to the particular controller using the value of @RequestMapping annotation.
2. @Service -> Classes annotated with this, are intended to manipulate data, that we receive from the client or fetch from the database. All the manipulation with data should be done in this layer.
3. @Repository -> Classes annotated with this, are intended to connect with database. It can also be considered as DAO(Data Access Object) layer. This layer should be restricted to CRUD (create, retrieve, update, delete) operations only. If any manipulation is required, data should be sent be send back to @Service layer.

If we interchange their place(use @Repository in place of @Controller), our application will work fine.

The main purpose of using three different @annotations is to provide better Modularity to the Enterprise application.

Use of @Service and @Repository annotations are important from database connection perspective.

1. Use @Service for all your web service type of DB connections
2. Use @Repository for all your stored proc DB connections

If you do not use the proper annotations, you may face commit exceptions overridden by rollback transactions. You will see exceptions during stress load test that is related to roll back JDBC transactions.

@Repository @Service and @Controller are serves as specialization of @Component for more specific use on that basis you can replace @Service to @Component but in this case you loose the specialization.

1. **@Repository**   - Automatic exception translation in your persistence layer.
2. **@Service**      - It indicates that the annotated class is providing a business service to other layers within the application.

all these annotations are type of stereo type type of annotation,the difference between these three annotations are

• If we add the @Component then it tells the role of class is a component class it means it is a class consisting some logic,but it does not tell whether a class containing a specifically business or persistence or controller logic so we don't use directly this @Component annotation
• If we add @Service annotation then it tells that a role of class consisting business logic
• If we add @Repository on top of class then it tells that a class consisting persistence logic
• Here @Component is a base annotation for @Service,@Repository and @Controller annotations

for example

package com.spring.anno;
@Service
public class TestBean
{
    public void m1()
    {
       //business code
    }
}

package com.spring.anno;
@Repository
public class TestBean
{
    public void update()
    {
       //persistence code
    }
}

• whenever we adds the @Service or @Repositroy or @Controller annotation by default @Component annotation is going to existence on top of the class

Spring provides four different types of auto component scan annotations, they are @Component, @Service, @Repository and @Controller. Technically, there is no difference between them, but every auto component scan annotation should be used for a special purpose and within the defined layer.

@Component: It is a basic auto component scan annotation, it indicates annotated class is an auto scan component.

@Controller: Annotated class indicates that it is a controller component, and mainly used at the presentation layer.

@Service: It indicates annotated class is a Service component in the business layer.

@Repository: You need to use this annotation within the persistence layer, this acts like database repository.

One should choose a more specialised form of @Component while annotating their class as this annotation may contain specific behavior going forward.

There is no difference between @Component, @Service, @Controller, @Repository. @Component is the Generic annotation to represent the component of our MVC. But there will be several components as part of our MVC application like service layer components, persistence layer components and presentation layer components. So to differentiate them Spring people have given the other three annotations also.

• To represent persistence layer components: @Repository
• To represent service layer components: @Service
• To represent presentation layer components: @Controller
• or else you can use @Component for all of them.

@Component: you annotate a class @Component, it tells hibernate that it is a Bean.

@Repository: you annotate a class @Repository, it tells hibernate it is a DAO class and treat it as DAO class. Means it makes the unchecked exceptions (thrown from DAO methods) eligible for translation into Spring DataAccessException.

@Service: This tells hibernate it is a Service class where you will have @Transactional etc Service layer annotations so hibernate treats it as a Service component.

Plus @Service is advance of @Component. Assume the bean class name is CustomerService, since you did not choose XML bean configuration way so you annotated the bean with @Component to indicate it as a Bean. So while getting the bean object CustomerService cust = (CustomerService)context.getBean("customerService"); By default, Spring will lower case the first character of the component – from ‘CustomerService’ to ‘customerService’. And you can retrieve this component with name ‘customerService’. But if you use @Service annotation for the bean class you can provide a specific bean name by

@Service("AAA")
public class CustomerService{

and you can get the bean object by

CustomerService cust = (CustomerService)context.getBean("AAA");

Annotate other components with @Component, for example REST Resource classes.

@Component
public class AdressComp{
    .......
    ...//some code here    
}

@Component is a generic stereotype for any Spring managed component.

@Controller, @Service and @Repository are Specializations of @Component for specific use cases.

@Component in Spring

We can answer this according to java standard

Referring to JSR-330, which is now supported by spring, you can only use @Named to define a bean (Somehow @Named=@Component). So according to this standard, there seems that there is no use to define stereotypes (like @Repository, @Service, @Controller) to categories beans.

But spring user these different annotations in different for the specific use, for example:

1. Help developers define a better category for the competent. This categorizing may become helpful in some cases. (For example when you are using aspect-oriented, these can be a good candidate for pointcuts)
2. @Repository annotation will add some functionality to your bean (some automatic exception translation to your bean persistence layer).
3. If you are using spring MVC, the @RequestMapping can only be added to classes which are annotated by @Controller.

Even if we interchange @Component or @Repository or @service

It will behave the same , but one aspect is that they wont be able to catch some specific exception related to DAO instead of Repository if we use component or @ service

The answers presented here are partially technically correct, but even though the response list is long and this will be at the bottom I thought it was worth putting an actually correct response in here too, just in case somebody stumbles upon it and learns something valuable from it. It's not that the rest of the answers are completely wrong, it's just that they aren't right. And, to stop the hordes of trolls, yes, I know that technically these annotations are effectively the same thing right now and mostly interchangeable even unto spring 5. Now, for the right answer:

These three annotations are completely different things and are not interchangeable. You can tell that because there are three of them rather than just one. They are not intended to be interchangeable, they're just implemented that way out of elegance and convenience.

Modern programming is invention, art, technique, and communication, in varying proportions. The communication bit is usually very important because code is usually read much more often than its written. As a programmer you're not only trying to solve the technical problem, you're also trying to communicate your intent to future programmers who read your code. These programmers may not share your native language, nor your social environment, and it is possible that they may be reading your code 50-years in the future (it's not as unlikely as you may think). It's difficult to communicate effectively that far into the future. Therefore, it is vital that we use the clearest, most efficient, correct, and communicative language available to us. That we chose our words carefully to have maximum impact and to be as clear as possible as to our intent.

For example, it is vital that @Repository is used when we're writing a repository, rather than @Component. The latter is a very poor choice of annotation for a repository because it does not indicate that we're looking at a repository. We can assume that a repository is also a spring-bean, but not that a component is a repository. With @Repository we are being clear and specific in our language. We are stating clearly that this is a repository. With @Component we are leaving it to the reader to decide what type of component they are reading, and they will have to read the whole class (and possibly a tree of subclasses and interfaces) to infer meaning. The class could then possibly be misinterpreted by a reader in the distant future as not being a repository, and we would have been partially responsible for this mistake because we, who knew full well that this is a repository, failed to be specific in our language and communicate effectively our intent.

I won't go into the other examples, but will state as clearly as I can: these annotations are completely different things and should be used appropriately, as per their intent. @Repository is for storage repositories and no other annotation is correct. @Service is for services and no other annotation is correct. @Component is for components that are neither repositories nor services, and to use either of these in its place would also be incorrect. It might compile, it might even run and pass your tests, but it would be wrong and I would think less of you (professionally) if you were to do this.

There are examples of this throughout spring (and programming in general). You must not use @Controller when writing a REST API, because @RestController is available. You must not use @RequestMapping when @GetMapping is a valid alternative. Etc. Etc. Etc. You must chose the most specific exact and correct language you can to communicate your intent to your readers, otherwise, you are introducing risks into your system, and risk has a cost.

Finally, I'd like to bring up a point of order concerning Object-Oriented systems. One of the fundamental rules is that implementations can vary but interfaces shouldn't. Assuming that these annotations are the same thing is a very slippery slope and completely against OO. Although they may be implemented in an interchangeable way now, there is no guarantee that they will be in the future. Further, even within the same team, an engineer may decide to hang some behaviour off one or more of these annotations using aspects, or a platform engineer may choose to replace the implementation of one of these for operational reasons. You just don't know, nor should you -- in OO you rely on the interface, not the implementation.

In Spring 4, latest version:

The @Repository annotation is a marker for any class that fulfills the role or stereotype of a repository (also known as Data Access Object or DAO). Among the uses of this marker is the automatic translation of exceptions as described in Section 20.2.2, “Exception translation”.

Spring provides further stereotype annotations: @Component, @Service, and @Controller. @Component is a generic stereotype for any Spring-managed component. @Repository, @Service, and @Controller are specializations of @Component for more specific use cases, for example, in the persistence, service, and presentation layers, respectively. Therefore, you can annotate your component classes with @Component, but by annotating them with @Repository, @Service, or @Controller instead, your classes are more properly suited for processing by tools or associating with aspects. For example, these stereotype annotations make ideal targets for pointcuts. It is also possible that @Repository, @Service, and @Controller may carry additional semantics in future releases of the Spring Framework. Thus, if you are choosing between using @Component or @Service for your service layer, @Service is clearly the better choice. Similarly, as stated above, @Repository is already supported as a marker for automatic exception translation in your persistence layer.

@Component is the top level generic annotation which makes the annotated bean to be scanned and available in the DI container

@Repository is specialized annotation and it brings the feature of converting all the unchecked exceptions from the DAO classes

@Service is specialized annotation. it do not bring any new feature as of now but it clarifies the intent of the bean

@Controller is specialized annotation which makes the bean MVC aware and allows the use of further annotation like @RequestMapping and all such

Here are more details

Good enough answers are here to explain the whats-the-difference-between-component-repository-service-annotations. I would like to share the difference between @Controller & @RestController

@Controller vs RestController