Image description

It started as a small project — a simple website with a homepage, login page, and dashboard, all in one codebase. Everything was smooth with one team, one repo, one deploy.

But as the app grew, things got messy.

New features made the codebase heavier, bug fixes required navigating hundreds of unrelated files, and deployment days were risky. One wrong merge could bring everything down.

That’s when Micro Frontends were introduced — breaking the app into smaller, independent parts to help teams move faster without stepping on each other.

What We’ll Cover

In this blog, we’ll walk through the journey of frontend architecture — from the simplicity of monoliths to the flexibility of micro frontends.

Here’s what you can expect:

  • What is Frontend Architecture?
  • What is a Monolithic Frontend?
  • What are Micro Frontends?
  • Pros and Cons of Monolithic vs Micro Frontends
  • When Should You Consider Micro Frontends?
  • Real-World Examples

By the end of this post, you’ll have a clear understanding of both approaches — and you’ll be ready to make smarter architectural decisions for your own projects.

Ready? Let’s dive in.

What is Frontend Architecture?

Frontend architecture is just a blueprint for how a website’s user interface (what people see and interact with) is organized and built.

Let’s use a simple restaurant example to understand this better — it’ll help us visualize how frontend architecture works in real life, especially when we later explore Monolithic and Micro Frontends.

Imagine two food places:

  1. A single restaurant with one big kitchen making everything — burgers, pizza, coffee, dessert. The same team handles everything.
  2. A food court, where each stall specializes — one makes only burgers, another only pizza, and a different one serves coffee.

These are two different architectures for serving food.

Now apply that to websites:

  • A Monolithic Frontend is like the restaurant: one team, one big codebase, everything built and deployed together.
  • A Micro Frontend is like the food court: different teams build and manage separate parts of the website independently — like one team handling the payment page, another handling settings, and so on.

Why Does Architecture Matter?

Just like a food place needs to be planned well to avoid chaos in the kitchen, a website needs to be well-structured so teams don’t get in each other’s way and updates don’t break everything.

Good architecture helps:

  • Teams work without conflicts (like chefs not bumping into each other)
  • Faster changes (new menu item? Easy!)
  • More control (each stall can be changed without shutting down the entire food court)

What is a Monolithic Frontend?

Illustration showing a Monolithic Frontend architecture compared to a single restaurant. One kitchen prepares all types of food, causing congestion as the menu grows. This visual simplifies the concept of a tightly coupled frontend system, where everything is managed together inside one codebase.<br> Keywords: Monolithic Frontend, restaurant example, frontend architecture, single codebase, tightly coupled system.

Imagine you're at a small restaurant where the chef does everything: preparing the food, managing the menu, and handling the service. All the work is done in one kitchen, with no separation of responsibilities. In a Monolithic Frontend, this is how everything is structured — all parts of the frontend (UI, logic, styles) are tightly integrated and handled by a single codebase.

This approach works well when you're running a small restaurant (or a small application). It's simple, straightforward, and easy to manage. But as the restaurant grows and the number of customers increases, problems begin to arise:

  • Increased complexity: As you add more dishes to the menu (features to the app), the kitchen (codebase) becomes crowded and harder to manage.
  • Tighter coupling: If something goes wrong in the kitchen (a bug in one part of the frontend), it affects the whole restaurant (the entire application).
  • Slower development: With multiple teams in the kitchen trying to add new dishes (features) at the same time, they often bump into each other, slowing things down and creating conflict.

What started as a simple, manageable system can quickly turn into a chaotic and difficult-to-manage one as your restaurant (or app) expands.

What are Micro Frontends?

Illustration showing Micro Frontends architecture compared to multiple specialized restaurants. Each restaurant handles its own menu independently, allowing faster service and easier scaling. This visual explains how Micro Frontends split the frontend into smaller, manageable parts owned by different teams.<br> Keywords: Micro Frontends, restaurant example, scalable frontend, independent teams, modern frontend architecture.

Now, imagine you’re at a food court, where different stalls (representing separate micro frontends) are independently operated by different vendors. Each vendor specializes in a particular type of cuisine: one for burgers, another for sushi, and another for salads. Each stall operates independently, but all contribute to a great dining experience.

In this setup, each stall (frontend microservice) is in charge of its own section of the food court (the application), and they are loosely coupled, meaning they don’t interfere with each other. You can update a menu item or change a recipe (feature) at one stall without disrupting the others. The benefits are clear:

  • Increased flexibility: Each vendor can specialize and move quickly without waiting for others.
  • Easier scaling: If one stall becomes popular (a feature grows), you can just add another stall (scale that feature) without affecting the others.
  • Faster development: Different teams can work independently, making changes and deploying faster without the risk of stepping on each other’s toes.

This approach allows the system to grow without creating chaos, much like a food court thrives with many diverse food options, each serving customers independently but as part of a whole.

When Should You Consider Micro Frontends?

Micro Frontends are powerful — but they aren't the right fit for every project.
Here are some signs that it might be time to make the move:

  • Your application is growing fast: If your codebase is getting large and hard to manage, splitting it into smaller, independent pieces can help keep things under control.
  • Multiple teams are working on the same frontend: When teams constantly overlap, causing merge conflicts or delays, Micro Frontends allow each team to own and deploy their piece independently.
  • You need faster deployments: If releasing new features feels slow and risky, Micro Frontends can enable teams to ship updates faster without waiting on others.
  • You want flexibility in tech stacks: Maybe one part of your app would benefit from a different framework or version. Micro Frontends make it possible without rewriting everything.
  • You plan to scale your team or project: As your organization grows, dividing the frontend helps you add more people without creating a bottleneck in development.

But a quick warning:
If your app is small or your team is tight-knit, introducing Micro Frontends too early can add unnecessary complexity.

Start simple, and scale your architecture only when the challenges of a monolith start holding you back.

Real-World Examples

Many leading companies have adopted Micro Frontends to scale their products more efficiently. Let’s take a quick look:

  • Amazon: Different teams manage different parts of the Amazon homepage — like "Recommended for You," "Deals," and "Cart." Each team builds, deploys, and updates their section independently without waiting for others.

  • Spotify: Spotify’s web player is a combination of small frontend modules, allowing their teams to rapidly experiment with new features without risking the entire application.

  • IKEA: IKEA rebuilt parts of their online shopping experience using Micro Frontends, enabling different teams (like product listings, cart, and checkout) to innovate independently while keeping the user experience consistent.

  • Netflix: Netflix uses a variation of Micro Frontends to deliver personalized experiences — different parts of their web app load independently based on the user’s profile and device.

The takeaway?
Micro Frontends help big companies move fast, stay flexible, and minimize the risks of updating huge applications — all without sacrificing user experience.

Conclusion

Choosing between a Monolithic Frontend and Micro Frontends isn’t about picking the "better" option — it's about choosing what fits your project’s needs today and tomorrow.

  • If you're building a small or medium-sized app with a single team, a Monolithic Frontend can keep things simple and fast.
  • If your application is growing, your teams are scaling, or you need more flexibility, Micro Frontends could help you move faster and manage complexity better.

Both approaches have their pros and cons. The key is recognizing when it's time to evolve your architecture to match your business and technical goals.

Thanks for reading! 🚀

If you found this helpful, feel free to share it or drop your thoughts in the comments — I'd love to hear your experiences with frontend architecture!