Modular Monoliths: Why Teams are Rolling Back Microservices Complexity for Speed

For years, software architecture has chased one core goal: speed without sacrificing stability. As systems grew more complex and teams scaled, organizations searched for ways to break free from rigid, slow-moving applications and unlock rapid innovation. This pursuit led many toward microservices, a model that promised freedom through independence, flexibility through separation, and resilience through distributed design.

Yet architecture is not just about structure; it is about sustainability. As teams gained real-world experience, they began to realize that splitting systems into dozens of services did not always translate into faster delivery. Instead, many found themselves managing coordination overhead, operational strain, and growing complexity that slowed progress rather than accelerating it.

This shift in perspective has brought modular monoliths back into focus. By combining strong internal boundaries with the simplicity of a single deployable system, modular monoliths offer an approach that prioritises clarity, speed, and adaptability. This blog explores why modular monoliths are resurging, how they reduce microservices complexity, what “modular” truly means in practice, and how this architecture supports faster delivery. It also examines how teams can evaluate whether a modular monolith, microservices, or a hybrid approach best suits their environment, along with practical guidance for designing systems that remain scalable, maintainable, and future-ready.

How We Got Here: From Monoliths to Microservices… and Back Again

To understand why many teams now step away from microservices, we need to revisit how modern application architecture evolved. Every shift happened as a response to real problems, but each solution also introduced its own challenges.

Classic monoliths

Traditional monoliths placed the entire application, APIs, business logic, user interface, and data access inside a single codebase and a single deployment unit. For a long time, this structure worked well and supported rapid growth for many organizations. Teams benefited from:

• A single repository and unified deployment pipeline
• Fast performance through direct in-process communication
• Straightforward local development and debugging
• Clear visibility into the whole system from one place

Early-stage teams often moved quickly with this model because changes required coordination within one system rather than across multiple services. Developers could trace issues end-to-end without juggling distributed logs or complex tracing tools.

However, as applications grew larger and more feature-rich, monoliths started to lose their clarity. Modules overlapped, responsibilities blurred, and shortcuts became permanent solutions. The system slowly transformed into what many engineers describe as a “big ball of mud,” where tightly coupled components made even small changes risky.

A minor update in one area could ripple across unrelated features, triggering difficult-to-predict regressions. Release cycles stretched out as teams spent more time testing the entire application instead of specific components. What once felt efficient began to feel restrictive, prompting organizations to seek more flexible architectural models.

The microservices wave

Microservices promised a clear way out of the limitations of large, tightly coupled systems. Instead of maintaining a single massive application, organizations could divide functionality into smaller, focused services, each responsible for a specific business capability and connected via APIs or messaging. This approach supported agile workflows and DevOps practices, enabling teams to deploy and scale components independently. For enterprises operating at a global scale, this trade-off continues to deliver real value.

Widespread adoption followed this promise, as many organizations viewed microservices as a direct path to improved agility and scalability. Yet in practice, the model introduced a new layer of operational complexity that many teams underestimated. Running microservices effectively demands a broad ecosystem of infrastructure, monitoring, and specialized expertise, which often outweighs its benefits for moderately scaled systems.

However, microservices come with serious overhead:

• Infrastructure: Kubernetes clusters, service meshes, API gateways, and per-service CI/CD pipelines
• Observability: Distributed tracing, logs, metrics, and dashboards for dozens of services
• Security: Zero-trust architecture, per-service authentication, encryption, and compliance mechanisms
• Team skills: Deep expertise in DevOps, cloud platforms, and site reliability engineering (SRE)

While microservices enable fast development cycles and fine-grained scalability, they also introduce increased costs and coordination burden across infrastructure, monitoring, deployment automation, and security layers. As service counts grow, these overheads increase steadily, often without a proportional rise in business value.

In essence, microservices perform exceptionally well in environments that genuinely demand massive scale and independent service evolution. For many mid-sized systems, however, this architecture introduces complexity that slows teams down rather than accelerating innovation.

The modular monolith comeback

This approach defines the modular monolith. It brings together the core strengths of traditional monoliths, such as simplicity and performance, while incorporating the structured modularity and clear boundaries typically associated with microservices. By blending these qualities, teams achieve a system that remains efficient yet flexible enough to evolve as complexity grows.

This balance has gained substantial traction across the industry. Many teams that rushed into microservices are now reconsidering their approach and moving back toward modular monoliths, while others are choosing this model as their starting point for new systems. It provides a practical middle ground that supports growth without immediately introducing the heavy operational demands of fully distributed architectures.

What Exactly Is a Modular Monolith?

The term “modular monolith” can sound contradictory at first: if it’s modular, how is it still a monolith?

‍Working definition

A modular monolith functions as a single deployable application while maintaining strong internal separation through clearly defined and self-contained modules. Each module operates as an independent unit with specific responsibilities and well-established interfaces, allowing it to manage its own logic without interfering with other areas of the system.

These modules typically align with core business domains such as Billing, Inventory, or Identity. They expose reliable internal APIs that other parts of the application use to interact with them, creating predictable communication paths and preserving structural clarity across the system.

Key traits of a modular monolith include:

• Single deployment unit- One executable or container runs the entire system. You don’t orchestrate separate services at runtime.

• Domain-oriented modules - Modules map to business subdomains (e.g., “Orders,” “Payments”) rather than technical layers (e.g., “Controllers,” “Services”).

• Clear boundaries and interfaces - Modules communicate via internal APIs, facades, or message handlers. You avoid reaching across modules directly into implementation or database tables.

• Independent development and testing - Teams can work on modules in parallel, with their own tests and sometimes their own build modules, while still shipping a single artifact.

• Shared infrastructure - All modules share the same runtime platform, logging stack, and deployment pipeline, which drastically simplifies operations.

How it differs from a “structured monolith”

Many teams claim to have a modular monolith when, in reality, they operate a traditional monolith with neatly labeled folders. The fundamental distinction lies in how strictly boundaries are enforced. A true modular monolith treats separation as structure, not suggestion.

Teams define module boundaries as non-negotiable contracts. They actively block unauthorized dependencies through code reviews, architectural rules, and tooling that prevents direct access to internal logic. Each module is built with the foresight that it could eventually stand alone as an independent service if required. This approach draws heavily from domain-driven design principles, where bounded contexts keep responsibilities focused and coherent, ensuring the system remains modular in practice, not just in name.

Why Teams Are Rolling Back Microservices

If microservices promise so much, why are teams willing to “re-monolith” or start modular monoliths instead? Several patterns recur in both research and practice.

Operational overhead outweighs benefits for many systems

A closer look at modern system architectures shows that microservices tend to introduce steadily increasing operational overhead, particularly in areas such as infrastructure management, observability, deployment workflows, and security governance. These pressures become even more visible when you compare them to a carefully structured modular monolith.

Teams must manage and monitor multiple deployed components instead of a single unified system. They also need advanced debugging and tracing capabilities to track issues across network boundaries, along with increased coordination to implement changes that span multiple services. For organizations that do not operate at hyperscale, this added complexity often reduces agility rather than enhancing it, slowing down delivery and increasing operational strain.

Service sprawl and cognitive overload

Architects first split a monolith into a handful of services. As time passes, more services appear: for experiments, side features, or refactorings that never get consolidated. Teams wake up to dozens of services with partial documentation and overlapping responsibilities.

Developers then spend energy answering questions like:

• “Which service owns this business rule?”

• “Where does this event originate?”

• “Why did this change in Service A break Service F?”

In a modular monolith, teams still enjoy separation of concerns, but they track modules within a single process and codebase. They search once, debug in one place, and run one version matrix across environments. This reduces cognitive load, particularly for new hires.

Latency and consistency concerns

Microservices require network calls even for internal, high-traffic interactions. In many business systems, performance and data consistency matter more than infinite horizontal scalability.

Modular monoliths often deliver stronger performance for many typical workloads because their modules interact through direct in-process calls rather than network communication. This structure allows teams to maintain a single transactional context, simplifying data handling and improving response times. By removing the need for complex distributed coordination, systems remain efficient and reliable while still preserving clearly defined module boundaries.

Team size and maturity

Microservices assume:

• Multiple autonomous teams

• A mature DevOps culture

• Strong cloud infrastructure skills

• Committed investment in tooling

Smaller organizations, or business units with limited DevOps capacity, struggle to run dozens of services safely. A modular monolith lets them:

• Keep deployment simple

• Focus on product features instead of platform engineering

• Grow architecture complexity only when the organization is ready

This makes modular monoliths especially attractive for startups, smaller product teams, and internal platforms.

How Modular Monoliths Improve Speed

While microservices shine in large-scale distribution and independent scaling, modular monoliths stand out for how efficiently they move work from concept to live deployment. They support a steady, uninterrupted flow, enabling teams to spend less time managing infrastructure and more time delivering value.

This efficiency stems from structuring the system around domain-focused modules, clearly defined module interfaces, and an organized build structure that supports parallel development without the need for distributed services. Together, these elements create an environment where changes move faster, releases stay predictable, and delivery velocity remains consistently high. Let’s dive into the factors:

Faster feedback loops

With one deployment pipeline and one artifact:

• A small change in one module goes through the same pipeline as any other.

• You avoid orchestrating multi-service deployments for cross-cutting changes.

• Integration tests run against a single running application, not a cluster of services.

Developers get quicker feedback on whether a change works, both locally and in shared environments.

Simpler debugging and incident response

In a microservices environment, debugging often means:

1. Correlating logs across multiple services
2. Tracing calls through a service mesh
3. Reproducing failures in a distributed environment

In a modular monolith:

• You inspect logs from one application.
• You trace calls as simple function or method calls.
• You reproduce errors locally more easily.

You still log, trace, and monitor carefully, but you operate at the application level rather than the cluster level. That reduction in complexity saves hours during incidents and root cause analysis.

Less platform engineering, more product work

Every hour your senior engineers spend tuning Kubernetes manifests, service-mesh rules, or complex CI pipelines is an hour they do not spend on delivering business value.

Modular monoliths centralize:

• Deployment configuration
• Observability configuration
• Security and compliance patterns

This design approach has gained strong attention across the industry because it allows developers to work within a modular structure while keeping future deployment options open. Teams can build systems that behave like a modular monolith in development, yet retain the flexibility to shift to more distributed deployment patterns as demand increases. Even without specialized frameworks, organizing a monolith into clear modules and boundaries delivers many of the same advantages in scalability, maintainability, and architectural adaptability.

Team autonomy inside one codebase

A modular monolith does not force everyone into a single, tangled workspace. Teams still operate independently, but within a carefully structured system that respects clear ownership boundaries. This model supports domain-focused collaboration without creating the fragmentation seen in fully distributed architectures.

Each team takes responsibility for a specific module tied to a defined business context. Other modules interact only through that module’s public interface rather than accessing its internal logic. As long as teams maintain these contracts, they can refine and evolve their modules freely. This setup preserves the autonomy, accountability, and clarity often associated with microservices, while eliminating the complexity of coordinating multiple deployments across separate systems.

When Should You Choose a Modular Monolith?

Modular monoliths are not a silver bullet. Sometimes microservices, or a hybrid, still make sense. The key is to match your architecture to your context.

Signs a Modular Monolith Fits Well

A modular monolith works best when your organization needs structure without excessive operational complexity. You are likely to benefit from this approach if:

• Your team or product group is relatively small.

Smaller teams gain speed when they operate within a shared codebase and a single deployment pipeline. Instead of spending time coordinating service versions, deployment windows, and cross-service dependencies, they focus directly on building features and improving user experience.

• Your domain changes frequently, and you need to refactor boundaries as you learn.

Early-stage and evolving products rarely have perfectly defined domain boundaries. A modular monolith allows teams to reshape modules as understanding deepens, without the friction of reconfiguring multiple services, APIs, and deployment pipelines.

• Your traffic profile does not yet require independent domain-level scaling.

If your application receives moderate or predictable traffic, separate scaling for each business capability adds unnecessary complexity. A modular monolith efficiently handles such workloads while still allowing internal separation of concerns.

• You want to prioritize iteration speed over fine-grained infrastructure tuning.

This model minimizes time spent configuring orchestrators, managing service meshes, and adjusting resource allocation for dozens of services. Teams can release features faster and respond to market feedback without being slowed down by platform concerns.

• Your organization lacks deep platform-engineering capacity.

Running microservices successfully requires experienced DevOps, SRE, and cloud specialists. When those resources are limited, a modular monolith provides a far more sustainable and manageable option.

In these scenarios, a modular monolith delivers practical advantages:

1. Clearly defined domain boundaries that support code clarity and ownership
2. High performance through in-process communication and shared memory
3. A simplified operational model with unified deployment and monitoring

At the same time, it preserves architectural flexibility. Teams can later extract select modules into independent services once scaling, performance, or isolation demands justify that transition.

When Microservices Still Make Sense

Microservices remain the better choice when system demands exceed what a single deployable unit can safely support. They make sense when:

• You operate at a massive scale with uneven load distribution.

If one domain experiences constant high traffic while another remains relatively idle, independent services allow you to scale only what you need, controlling costs and improving performance.

• You need strict isolation for regulatory, security, or multi-tenant requirements.

Specific systems require physical or logical separation to meet compliance standards or to prevent cross-tenant data access. Microservices provide that isolation more effectively.

• You already maintain a mature platform and SRE teams.

Organizations with established infrastructure expertise can handle the complexity of managing distributed systems without compromising delivery speed.

• Your organization requires independent release cycles across multiple product lines.

When teams must deploy features outside a central release window, microservices enable decentralized delivery and continuous deployment.

Even in scenarios where microservices seem justified, many experienced architects advise against adopting them as the starting point. They encourage teams to begin with a modular monolith and introduce separate services only when specific performance, scalability, or isolation demands clearly surface. This approach allows organizations to confirm real operational needs through practical experience before committing to the lasting complexity of a fully distributed architecture.

Designing a Modular Monolith for Speed

If you decide to go modular, the design choices you make early will determine whether your monolith stays healthy or becomes another “big ball of mud.”

Start with the domain, not the framework

Resist the urge to organize code solely by technical layer. Instead:

• Identify bounded contexts such as Billing, Catalog, Identity, and Fulfillment.
• Create modules around those contexts.
• Keep UI, application services, and domain logic close together inside each module.

This approach aligns with how modern architectural theory defines modular monoliths and reflects real-world practices used by experienced engineering teams. It reinforces a balanced design philosophy that merges structured academic principles with proven, practical implementation strategies followed across the industry.

Define rigid module boundaries

Give each module:

• A public API (e.g., service interfaces, command/query handlers, or internal HTTP handlers)
• Private implementation details (repositories, domain entities, helpers)
• Strict rules that prevent other modules from bypassing the API

You can enforce this with:

• Separate build modules or projects
• Architecture tests that forbid illegal imports
• Directory conventions and code review rules

A domain module API pattern places each module’s internal logic, including its data structures and database design, behind a clearly defined and stable interface. This approach prevents other parts of the system from directly accessing or depending on internal details, reducing the risk of tight coupling. By enforcing this separation, teams can modify and refine module internals more freely, making future changes and refactors significantly easier and safer.

Keep one database, or at least one logical data model

One hallmark of microservices is “database-per-service.” In a modular monolith, you often gain more by:

• Using one database (or a small number of databases) shared by modules,
• While keeping ownership of tables and schemas per module.

This gives you:

• Strong consistency via local transactions
• Simplified migrations and backup strategies
• Fewer cross-database coordination issues

You still respect module ownership: only the owning module’s code may access its tables. Other modules request data via the owner’s API rather than cross-querying tables directly.

Invest in automated testing and CI/CD

A monolith speeds deployment, but it also raises the stakes of each release. Automated tests keep confidence high:

• Unit tests inside each module
• Contract tests between modules to guarantee API compatibility
• End-to-end tests for critical flows

You can support this approach through a single, efficient CI/CD pipeline that handles testing and deployment for the entire application. Rather than managing numerous fragmented pipelines, teams rely on one consistent workflow that simplifies releases and reduces coordination overhead.

In contrast, microservices require significant investment in multiple CI/CD processes and extensive orchestration tooling to manage them. A modular monolith avoids this fragmentation by centralizing deployment logic, enabling faster, more predictable releases with far less operational complexity.

Design for observability from day one

Even without microservices, you still need good observability:

• Log with module context (e.g., “Billing”, “Orders”)
• Track key metrics (error rates, latency, throughput) per module.
• Use correlation IDs to follow a user request through multiple modules.

You don’t need a full distributed tracing infrastructure, but structured logs and clear module tags will dramatically speed up debugging.

Business Impact: Cost, Risk, and Talent

The shift back toward modular monoliths is not purely an architectural or engineering choice. It carries direct business consequences that affect cost structures, operational stability, and long-term scalability decisions.

Reduced Operational Spend

Microservices introduce a level of technical sophistication that often turns into a sustained financial burden. Running dozens or hundreds of independently deployed services requires:

• Higher compute consumption due to duplicated runtime environment
• Increased network traffic from inter-service communication
• Multiple layers of tooling for orchestration, service discovery, monitoring, and logging
• Specialized expertise in platform engineering, DevOps, and Site Reliability Engineering (SRE)

These demands often push operational costs far higher than many organizations initially anticipate. Running microservices at scale requires continuous investment in infrastructure, monitoring systems, deployment automation, and security tooling, all of which add layers of financial and operational strain. As the number of services increases, these costs compound, regardless of whether the business gains proportional value from that expansion.

In many cases, teams find themselves spending more time and budget maintaining the architecture than advancing product capabilities. The financial burden grows quietly over time, driven by service proliferation, tooling complexity, and specialized resource needs, creating a widening gap between architectural effort and measurable business impact.

A modular monolith significantly softens this financial pressure by simplifying the operational landscape. It allows teams to operate with:

• Fewer containers and runtime environments to provision and manage
• A centralized and more predictable monitoring stack
• A streamlined deployment process with reduced automation complexity
• Consolidated infrastructure that lowers compute and storage duplication

This consolidation does not limit performance; rather, it improves efficiency by removing unnecessary architectural overhead. Organizations gain better visibility into system behavior without maintaining a complex web of interconnected services and observability tools.

In practical terms, this shift often reflects as lower cloud usage bills, reduced tooling subscriptions, and decreased dependency on highly specialized infrastructure talent. Teams spend less time firefighting production issues and more time delivering product improvements. Fewer “platform emergencies” mean leadership can reallocate budgets toward innovation, customer experience, and strategic growth rather than continuous infrastructure maintenance.

Lower architectural risk

Starting new systems with microservices forces teams to define service boundaries before they fully understand how the domain will evolve. These early decisions often become deeply embedded in deployment processes and system dependencies, making them expensive and disruptive to revise later. What begins as a scalable structure can quickly turn into a rigid framework that restricts flexibility.

A modular monolith allows teams to evolve more naturally. Working within a single codebase makes it easier to adjust module responsibilities as real usage patterns emerge and business logic stabilizes. Once these boundaries prove reliable over time, teams can confidently extract only the modules that truly benefit from becoming independent services.

Easier hiring and onboarding

Knowledge of distributed systems is valuable but scarce. Many organizations struggle to hire engineers who are comfortable with complex microservices environments, service meshes, and deep cloud-native tooling.

Modular monoliths make onboarding easier:

• New engineers clone one repository and run one application.
• They see domain boundaries represented clearly in the code.
• They learn internal module APIs before they ever touch deployment manifests.

Modular monoliths often result in codebases that are easier for teams to understand and maintain because their structure more closely mirrors real business domains. This alignment helps developers navigate the system more clearly, reducing confusion and shortening the time it takes to understand how different components relate to one another.

When engineers encounter a system that reflects the problem it solves, collaboration becomes smoother, and learning curves shrink. Over time, this clarity improves the developer experience, supports consistent decision-making, and drives higher engagement and retention within technical teams.

A Practical Path Forward

If your team is currently wrestling with microservices complexity or planning a new system, consider this pragmatic roadmap:

1. Assess your true needs
   
   • Are you experiencing genuine scaling issues that require independent deployment and scaling per service?
   • Or are most of your pain points about complexity, visibility, and coordination?
2. Pilot a modular monolith for new features
   
   • For new products or major new areas, start with a modular monolith design.
   • Establish domain modules and strict boundaries from day one.
3. Refactor existing monoliths into modules
   
   • If you maintain a legacy monolith, treat module extraction as an internal refactor.
   • Introduce module APIs, move code behind them, and add tests.
4. Gradually sunset unnecessary microservices
   
   • Identify services whose complexity outweighs their benefits.
   • Consider merging them back into a modular monolith, while retaining clearly defined domain boundaries.
5. Extract services only for proven hotspots
   
   • Once traffic patterns and domain responsibilities solidify, extract modules that truly need independent scale or isolation.
   • Use the modular boundaries you already defined, so extraction becomes an operational change, not a full rewrite.

This path keeps options open. You don’t have to declare yourself a “monolith shop” or a “microservices shop.” You can build a modular core that supports both.

Conclusion: Modular Monoliths as a Strategic Reset

The return to modular monoliths reflects a growing maturity in how organizations approach software architecture. After years of pursuing microservices as the default solution, teams now recognize that speed, stability, and clarity matter more than architectural trendiness. They no longer chase complexity for its own sake. Instead, they choose structures that align with their actual operational needs, team capacity, and business scale.

Modular monoliths offer this balance. They preserve the simplicity and performance of a single deployable system while introducing the discipline of firm boundaries, domain ownership, and scalable design. Teams move faster because they debug in one place, deploy through one pipeline, and evolve their systems without coordinating dozens of independent services. At the same time, they avoid locking themselves into a rigid structure. When demand grows, they can still extract individual modules into microservices with precision and purpose.

For modern organizations, the most innovative strategy lies in intentional architecture. Start with modular design, optimize for learning and speed, and only introduce distributed complexity when the business clearly demands it. This approach shifts architecture from a fashionable decision to a strategic one, grounded in performance, cost efficiency, and long-term adaptability.

In a landscape where agility defines competitiveness, modular monoliths do not signal retreat. They represent a refined understanding of what scalable, sustainable software truly requires.

At Cogent Infotech, we help organizations move beyond architectural trends and design systems that truly fit their scale, teams, and business goals. Whether you are untangling microservices complexity, modernizing a legacy monolith, or designing a future-ready platform from the ground up, our architects bring practical experience, domain-driven thinking, and measurable results.

If you’re ready to reduce operational overhead, accelerate delivery, and build software that scales sustainably, let’s talk.

Partner with Cogent Infotech to assess your current architecture