What Is a Monolithic Architecture (and Why You Don’t Need to Fear It)
A monolithic application is built as a single unit. All functionality, business logic, and the data layer form one system that is developed, tested, and deployed together. For many, monoliths have a negative connotation, but in reality, they are often a very effective approach—especially at the beginning.
The main advantage of a monolith is simplicity. The architecture is easy to understand, onboarding new developers is fast, and the entire system is easier to test. From a cost perspective, it is often the most reasonable choice for an MVP or the first version of a product, where speed and early validation are critical.
Problems usually arise as the application grows. As new features are added, dependencies between system components increase, and even small changes can have unexpected side effects. A monolith is not bad—it simply has its limits.
What Are Microservices and Why Everyone Talks About Them
Microservices architecture divides an application into smaller, independent services. Each service has a clearly defined responsibility, its own logic, and often its own data. These services communicate with each other via interfaces, typically APIs.
The main benefit of microservices is flexibility. Individual parts of the system can be developed, tested, and deployed independently. This is a major advantage for larger products where multiple teams work in parallel or where different parts of the system evolve at different speeds.
On the downside, microservices introduce significantly more complexity. They require strong architectural discipline, robust infrastructure, and an experienced team. When introduced too early, they can create more problems than value.
When a Monolith Is the Better Choice
A monolithic architecture makes sense when speed and simplicity are the primary goals. This is typically the case for MVPs, startup projects, or products in an early stage where it is not yet clear which features will be critical and which may turn out to be unnecessary.
A monolith enables fast iterations, lower initial costs, and simpler system management. If the team is small and the product is still evolving, unnecessary architectural complexity can significantly slow down development.
When Microservices Start to Make Sense
Microservices become appropriate once an application reaches a certain level of maturity. Features are clearly defined, the product has a stable user base, and the system needs to scale—either technically or organizationally.
Typical signals include deployment difficulties, slowing development speed, frequent conflicts between teams, or the need to optimize only a specific part of the system, such as payments or notifications. In such cases, microservices help distribute responsibility and eliminate bottlenecks.
The Most Common Mistake: Deciding Too Early
One of the most common mistakes is choosing microservices at the very beginning of a project simply because they are considered a “best practice.” In reality, there is no universally correct solution. Architecture should support business goals, not hinder them.
A highly effective approach is to start with a well-designed monolith that has clearly separated modules. Such a system can later be gradually split into microservices without the need to rewrite the entire application.
Conclusion: Architecture Is a Strategy, Not a Trend
The choice between a monolith and microservices is not a minor technical detail. It is a strategic decision that affects the entire lifecycle of a product. A monolith offers speed and simplicity; microservices offer flexibility and scalability. The key is choosing the right approach at the right time.
The best architecture is not the most complex one, but the one that allows a product to grow without unnecessary technical or business compromises.
