Monolithic vs Microservices Architecture: Pros and Cons for 2025

Let’s start with what describes each software architecture. The main factor that separates the two strategies is their structure. Monolith consists of a unified codebase, in which all elements of the entire system can’t exist without each other and behave as a single deployable unit.

In contrast, microservice architecture is a collection of multiple independent services that run various tasks and communicate with each other through APIs. What other differences between monolithic and distributed systems can we find?

All components of a monolithic app, such as database support, operation logic, and UI, are located inside a single solution and work together as a whole. Communication between the components goes through direct function calls. This style of application development simplifies things a lot, especially in the earliest development phases.

Despite the initial enthusiasm, as the monolithic system expands, limitations accumulate. Because all the components are closely interconnected, adding new features and making changes gets more complicated. Eventually, developing and scaling a monolithic application may become time-consuming and increasingly expensive.

Services developed under a distributed system architecture can be deployed and scaled separately. This enables teams to work on individual components of the system concurrently without affecting the whole. Microservices often run in containers, or lightweight, isolated runtime environments managed by orchestration platforms. One of these platforms is Kubernetes.

Each individual service usually has its own database and manages the stored information independently. This is a massive contrast to a monolithic architecture, where all components use a shared database. The distributed approach increases the system’s flexibility, lets you better tailor it to your business needs, and helps you scale selected functions without affecting the performance of the others.

How does microservices-based architecture compare to the monolithic approach? Let’s see how both technologies work in practice.

With a monolithic architecture, the development team’s work during the early stages tends to be more structured and easier to coordinate. Shared source code makes debugging and testing easier. As the project grows, working on separate features simultaneously can lead to compatibility conflicts, so the pace of delivering new functions can decrease.

In a microservices architecture, teams can work independently on individual services. Functionalities evolve in parallel, and changes don’t require rebuilding the entire infrastructure. This model increases organizational flexibility but also adds challenges. Testing, integration, and monitoring the performance of individual services require more advanced tools and mature DevOps practices. Coordination between teams must also be robust, primarily when services work together in real time.

Scaling monolithic applications means that the whole system requires more resources. If only one function needs more processing power, extra copies of the entire monolithic application must be launched. Conversely, direct communication between components within a single program guarantees high operational efficiency and minimal latency because data is transferred internally.

Microservices allow for more precise scaling. Resources are added only for a specific service, helping better align the infrastructure with the actual load and optimizing costs. However, the distribution of services necessitates communicating over the network, which adds overhead and can affect overall performance. Service grids help reduce this overhead, but can’t completely eliminate the resulting latency.

As you can see, the choice between monolithic and microservices can be difficult. So, let’s consider choosing one of the approaches from a business perspective. Which one is more profitable for you?

Despite the massive popularity of microservices, monolithic architecture is still being chosen. Monoliths are great for startups that want to quickly validate their idea (MVP) and bring a product to market. This can be more effective and easier to maintain for simpler applications with a limited number of features.

Many successful digital products began as well-designed monoliths that later transformed into microservices-based architectures. This helped their developers invest less at the start while maintaining flexibility for the future. The monolith can be a thoughtful choice tailored to current business needs.

When is it best to choose microservices? This approach brings the most benefits when:

• The app is modular and needs independent scaling of each function.
• Multiple teams are working on the project at the same time.
• The system must be fault-tolerant, and errors in one component shouldn’t affect the operation of the entire application.
• You want to use different technologies and select them individually.

Of course, all these benefits create extra costs, both infrastructural and organizational. For this reason, their implementation should be motivated by the project’s real needs and not treated as a default solution.

The real challenge isn’t choosing between monolithic and microservices architectures – it’s making your chosen approach work brilliantly for your specific needs. Success comes down to implementing proven practices that address each architecture’s unique strengths while mitigating potential pitfalls. Here’s how leading development teams get the most out of both approaches, turning architectural decisions into competitive advantages.

In a well-designed monolithic application, teams use the following practices:

• Modular design patterns – a well-designed monolith should be divided into logical modules with clearly defined responsibilities to support the separation of business logic and simplify app maintenance and development.
• Implemented continuous integration and delivery (CI/CD) – automated testing, building, and deployment of code lets you react faster to changes, reducing the time to deliver new features and minimizing the risk of errors.
• Blue-green deployment – this concept enables safe publication of new app versions by maintaining two environments in parallel and switching traffic seamlessly.
• Design with clear internal boundaries – you should separate functions and data even in a single application. Clear boundaries between components help manage complexity and prepare the application for possible future separation.
• Using internal APIs – modern monoliths often operate on internal APIs instead of direct function calls. If you need to migrate to microservices, many components can be more easily transformed into independent services without rebuilding the entire system.

The most hands-on strategies used for working on microservices are:

• Domain-driven design (DDD) – well-defined context boundaries enable the creation of microservices with clear responsibilities and minimize interdependencies. This keeps the architecture clear and allows teams to work independently on specific business areas.
• Service discovery and API management – successful microservice systems use dynamic discovery and API management through API gateways. This centrally controls access, versioning, and security of communication between services.
• Resiliency patterns – distributed architectures require protection against cascading failures. Patterns such as circuit breaker, retry, fallback, and bulkhead isolate failures and enable the application to remain operational even though there are partial problems in the system.
• Advanced observability – effective system monitoring goes beyond logs and metrics. Microservices require full visibility through tools such as distributed tracing, log centralization, performance metrics, and alerting. This helps quickly diagnose problems and maintain stable operations.
• Automation and operational practices – without strong DevOps practices, the complexity of microservices can outweigh the benefits of implementing them.

What if you could combine the benefits of microservices applications with the perks of monoliths? This kind of solution already exists. Modular monoliths are gaining traction. It’s an alternative to microservices, especially among mid-sized companies and teams that want to avoid the complexity of a distributed architecture while keeping their code transparent and scalable.

Modular monoliths combine the simplicity of monoliths with the good practices of microservices architecture. This means the application is deployed and run as a single system but is clearly divided into independent modules with well-defined responsibilities.

In 2025, a modular monolith is described as a serious competitor to microservices. Many teams opt for this concept in new projects, usually choosing it as a solution between the monolithic and microservice routes.

Implementing a modular monolith pays off early in the project. The team doesn’t have to maintain complex infrastructure, and individual processes are simpler. This converts into lower initial costs and faster implementation of changes.

However, there is one drawback to this positive story. Maintenance gets expensive if the application grows without clear boundaries between modules or if the team doesn’t follow architectural discipline. Scaling gets difficult, functions become more dependent on each other, and the risk of regression increases with each modification.

Choosing between a monolithic system and a microservices architecture is rarely a matter of right or wrong. There’s no one-size-fits-all solution – what works for one project may not work for another. While some products benefit from a lean monolithic start, others demand distributed complexity from the beginning. Moving from monolith to microservices is often a journey, not a switch. Making the right architectural call for even part of the application can define your project’s success.

If you’re unsure whether to use a monolithic structure or break things into services, you don’t have to make that decision in isolation. Scalo experts are here to guide you from the very first architectural choice all the way to your product’s launch.

Let’s build a scalable, maintainable, and smart app together.