Monolithic vs microservices: understanding modern architecture

Software architecture decisions are not just technical — they are strategic. They define how fast a company can grow, how easily it can adapt to market changes, and how much friction exists between technology and business.

Two of the most common approaches today are monolithic architecture and microservices architecture. Although the debate is often framed as a competition between “old” and “new,” reality is far more nuanced. Understanding their differences enables more informed decisions aligned with business goals.

Monolithic vs microservices: key differences in scalability, speed, and business risk

A monolith is an application built as a single unit. All its functions — user interface, business logic, and data access — are tightly integrated and deployed together.

Microservices, on the other hand, split an application into small, independent, and specialized services that communicate with each other.

From a business perspective, the key differences are:

Monolithic architecture

• Simpler to build and deploy at the beginning
• Lower initial cost
• Ideal for small products or lean teams
• Changes in one part of the system affect the entire application
• Scaling requires replicating the entire system

Microservices architecture

• Higher initial complexity
• Enables selective scalability
• Allows autonomous teams to work in parallel
• Reduces the impact of failures
• Accelerates long-term innovation

It’s not about which one is “better,” but which one is more appropriate given the company’s stage and maturity.

SOA vs microservices: centralization versus team autonomy

A common misconception is that microservices are simply a direct evolution of SOA (Service-Oriented Architecture). While they share principles, they are not the same.

SOA was designed to integrate large, heterogeneous systems, typically through a centralized service bus. This enabled reuse and standardization, but also introduced strong dependencies and bottlenecks.

Microservices, by contrast:

• Avoid a central point of control
• Favor lightweight communication
• Promote full autonomy for each service
• Align better with Agile and DevOps practices

From a leadership perspective, the key difference is organizational: SOA centralizes decisions; microservices decentralize responsibility.

Serverless vs microservices: operational model vs architectural model

Another frequent confusion is assuming that serverless replaces microservices. In reality, they are complementary concepts.

Microservices define how an application is structured.
Serverless defines how infrastructure is executed and managed.

A microservice can run:

• On traditional servers
• In containers
• On serverless platforms

For business leaders, what matters is understanding that:

• Serverless reduces operational overhead
• Microservices reduce structural dependency
• They do not solve the same problems

Many modern companies use microservices and serverless together, but they are not interchangeable.

APIs vs microservices: why exposing services doesn’t mean decoupling the system

Another common myth is: “If I have APIs, I already have microservices.” This is not necessarily true.

An API is an interface — a way to communicate with a system.
A microservice is a complete business unit, with its own logic and responsibility.

A monolith can expose multiple APIs and still remain monolithic.

The key distinction for leaders is:

• APIs enable integration
• Microservices enable organizational scalability and evolution

Confusing these concepts often leads to incomplete implementations that fail to deliver the expected benefits.

Why do large companies adopt microservices?

Companies like Netflix are often cited as examples of microservices-based architecture, but the point is not to imitate them — it’s to understand why they made that decision.

In large organizations:

• Teams are numerous
• Products evolve constantly
• Time to market is critical

Monolithic architecture begins to create friction: slow deployments, unnecessary dependencies, and higher risk when making changes. Microservices make it possible to decouple teams, accelerate decision-making, and scale only what’s needed.

However, many of these companies started with monoliths. The transition happened when the business demanded it — not before.

Monolith or microservices: a strategic decision

For company leaders, the right question is not “Should we use microservices?”, but rather:

• How fast do we need to scale?
• How many teams are working on the product?
• What level of resilience does the business require?
• Do we have the operational maturity to manage higher complexity?

In many cases, a well-designed monolith is still the best option. In others, microservices enable growth and sustained innovation.

The right architecture is not a trend — it’s a decision aligned with the business, the company’s stage, and its long-term growth vision.

We recommend you this video