Microservices vs Monoliths: When to Use Each

The Architecture Debate That Never Ends

For years, the software industry has oscillated between extremes: monolithic applications that do everything, and microservices architectures that split functionality into dozens or hundreds of independent services. The reality is that neither approach is universally superior. The right choice depends on your specific context, constraints, and goals.

I’ve built systems using both patterns and learned that the decision isn’t binary. Let me share what I’ve learned about when each architecture shines and when it creates unnecessary complexity.

What We’re Actually Comparing

Before diving into trade-offs, let’s clarify what we mean:

Monolithic Architecture: A single deployable unit containing all application functionality. The codebase may be modular internally, but it compiles and deploys as one artifact. Think traditional web applications, Rails apps, Django projects, or a single Spring Boot JAR.

Microservices Architecture: Multiple independently deployable services, each owning a specific business capability. Services communicate over the network via HTTP, gRPC, message queues, or event streams. Each service can use different technologies and scale independently.

When Monoliths Win

1. Early-Stage Products

If you’re building an MVP or exploring product-market fit, a monolith is almost always the right choice. Here’s why:

• Faster development: No network boundaries means no remote procedure calls, no distributed tracing, no service discovery. You can move fast.
• Simpler debugging: Stack traces work. Transactions work. You can step through code in a debugger without jumping between services.
• Lower operational overhead: One thing to deploy, one thing to monitor, one database to back up.

I’ve seen too many startups waste months building microservices infrastructure before they even know if customers want their product. Start with a well-structured monolith. You can always split it later if you need to.

2. Small Teams

If your engineering team has fewer than 10-15 people, a monolith keeps everyone productive. Microservices create coordination overhead that small teams can’t afford:

• Every service needs a owner
• Cross-service changes require coordination
• New engineers need to understand many repositories
• Testing becomes integration-heavy

A monolith lets a small team maintain a shared mental model of the entire system. Everyone can contribute to any part of the codebase.

3. Tightly Coupled Domains

Some business domains are inherently interconnected. If most features touch multiple areas of your system, forcing them into separate services creates chattiness and complexity.

Example: An e-commerce checkout flow that needs to validate inventory, calculate shipping, apply promotions, process payment, and send notifications. Making this work across 5+ microservices introduces latency, distributed transaction complexity, and failure modes that don’t exist in a monolith.

4. Limited Operational Maturity

Microservices demand operational excellence:

• Centralized logging and distributed tracing
• Service mesh or client-side load balancing
• Circuit breakers and retry logic
• Container orchestration (Kubernetes, ECS, etc.)
• Observability across dozens of services

If you don’t have these capabilities in place, microservices will create more problems than they solve. A monolith running on a few well-monitored servers is more reliable than poorly-operated microservices.

When Microservices Win

1. Scale Heterogeneity

Not all parts of your system have the same traffic patterns. Microservices let you scale components independently.

Example: At a past company, our image processing service needed 50x more compute resources than our user profile service. Running them as separate services meant we could scale each appropriately, saving significant infrastructure costs.

2. Team Autonomy at Scale

When you have 50+ engineers, a shared monolith becomes a bottleneck:

• Merge conflicts increase
• Deployment coordination becomes painful
• Testing the entire system takes longer
• Different teams want different release cadences

Microservices give teams ownership boundaries. The payments team can deploy twice daily while the reporting team deploys weekly. Each team has clear interfaces and can move at their own pace.

3. Technology Diversity

Sometimes you need different tools for different jobs:

• Python for machine learning
• Go for high-throughput data ingestion
• Node.js for real-time WebSocket services
• Java for complex transaction processing

Microservices let you choose the right tool for each job. A monolith locks you into one stack.

4. Fault Isolation

In a monolith, any bug can bring down the entire application. With microservices, failures are contained:

• The recommendation engine crashes? The rest of the site keeps working with cached recommendations
• The analytics pipeline falls behind? Core features aren’t affected
• A memory leak in one service? It doesn’t take down the whole platform

This isolation is valuable for systems where availability is critical and different components have different failure modes.

The Migration Path

Most successful microservices architectures started as monoliths. Here’s a proven migration strategy:

Phase 1: Modularize the Monolith

Before splitting services, create clear module boundaries within your monolith:

/monolith
  /modules
    /users
    /products
    /orders
    /payments

Enforce that modules only talk to each other through well-defined interfaces. Use architectural decision records (ADRs) or linting tools to prevent cross-module dependencies.

Phase 2: Extract Non-Critical Services First

Your first microservices should be:

• Low risk (not on the critical path)
• Clear boundaries (minimal dependencies)
• Good learning opportunities

Examples: email service, PDF generation, image resizing, background jobs processing.

Phase 3: Extract by Pain Points

As your monolith grows, certain areas will become bottlenecks:

• Services that need different scaling characteristics
• Features with different reliability requirements
• Components owned by different teams with coordination pain

Extract these strategically, not for ideological purity.

Phase 4: Leave the Core Alone

Some functionality is so interconnected that it should stay in the monolith. Don’t force microservices everywhere. A hybrid architecture with a central monolith and supporting microservices is often optimal.

The Decision Framework

Use this framework when evaluating architectures:

Start with a Monolith if:

• Team size < 15 engineers
• Product is early stage or rapidly changing
• Limited operational expertise
• Business domains are tightly coupled
• Shipping speed is more important than scale

Consider Microservices if:

• Team size > 30 engineers
• Clear, stable domain boundaries exist
• Different components need independent scaling
• You have strong DevOps and observability practices
• Teams are geographically distributed

Hybrid Approach if:

• You have some high-scale components and some stable core functionality
• Different teams have different operational maturity levels
• You’re migrating from monolith to microservices

Common Pitfalls to Avoid

1. Premature Decomposition

Don’t build microservices until you understand your domain boundaries. I’ve seen teams create 20 services for an application that should have been 3 services and a monolith.

2. Distributed Monoliths

If your microservices all deploy together and share a database, you have a distributed monolith: all the complexity of microservices with none of the benefits.

3. Nano-services

Services that are too small create overhead. A service should represent a meaningful business capability, not a single database table or class.

4. Ignoring the Network

The network is not reliable. When you split a monolith into microservices, function calls become network calls. This introduces latency, partial failures, and complexity. Design for these failure modes.

Operational Considerations

Whichever architecture you choose, invest in these capabilities:

For Monoliths:

• Modular codebase structure
• Feature flags for gradual rollouts
• Database migration tooling
• Comprehensive test suites
• Blue-green deployment capability

For Microservices:

• Service mesh or API gateway
• Distributed tracing (Jaeger, Zipkin)
• Centralized logging (ELK, Loki)
• Service discovery
• Circuit breakers and retry policies
• Contract testing between services

Real-World Examples

Successful Monoliths:

• Basecamp (still a monolith after 15+ years)
• Shopify (modular monolith with some extracted services)
• GitHub (mostly monolithic with strategic service extraction)

Successful Microservices:

• Netflix (hundreds of services, pioneered many patterns)
• Uber (thousands of services across multiple domains)
• Amazon (service-oriented since early 2000s)

Notice that successful microservices companies are massive with hundreds of engineers. They evolved into microservices; they didn’t start there.

The Verdict

Neither architecture is inherently better. The right choice depends on:

• Team size and structure
• Operational maturity
• Scale requirements
• Domain complexity
• Business constraints

Most companies should start with a well-structured monolith and extract microservices only when they have specific reasons to do so. The benefits of microservices are real, but they come with costs that are only justified at certain scales.

Don’t build microservices because they’re fashionable. Build them when they solve actual problems you have today, not problems you might have in the future.

---

The best architecture is the one that lets your team ship value to customers quickly and reliably. Start simple, measure everything, and evolve based on evidence.