Advantages and Disadvantages of Microservices: Which Architecture to Choose in 2024

Microservices architecture splits a single, monolithic application into a network of separate but interconnected services. Each service is responsible for a particular functionality and is developed, deployed, and maintained independently. 

Used since mid-2010s, microservices received praise from industry giants like Amazon, Uber, and Atlassian. Microservices, they say, made the scaling of their operations easier and accelerated the deployment of new features. 

However, reports of other businesses that shifted to microservices paint a less rosy picture. Added complexity, increased costs of infrastructure, and larger management burden are just some of the pretty large number of roadblocks one may hit when trying to actually implement microservices. 

In this article, we explain whether microservices are really worth the hype. First, we discuss the key benefits of microservices architecture compared to standard monolithic apps. Then, we turn to the drawbacks of microservices and provide you with real-world examples to help you make a responsible decision. 

At the end of the article, you can find a summary table outlining advantages and disadvantages of microservices for the majority of business cases. 

Let's get started. 

Why use microservices: The difference between microservices and monolith

Monolithic architecture is an approach where the app is built as a single, self-contained code base that performs different functions. All functions in the monolithic system exchange data and are dependent on each other. Monolithic applications remain popular because they are generally easier to develop, deploy, and test due to the unified code base.

The problem with monolithic apps is that they are difficult to scale. In a monolithic app, all components depend on each other and share a single set of resources. If one process starts struggling due to an increased workload, the whole app might crash, since all components share the same set of resources and are overloaded simultaneously. 

In a monolithic app, it's not possible to reallocate resources from one process to the other, or allocate more resources to a single process. You need to allocate more resources to the entire app and hope for the best. This is often a waste of money, especially with large and complex applications. 

With a microservices platform, each software component has its own computing resources. This allows you to easily scale the individual components whenever necessary. So, for example, you can increase the processing capacity of an app authentication service without wasting resources on other services that don’t require additional capacity. 

The graph below visually represents this basic difference in architecture. In monolithic architecture, all elements are tightly coupled and can’t be easily changed. By contrast, in a microservice architecture, each microservice is connected to an independent database and can be modified separately without major difficulties. 

Overall, microservices are distinguished from monolithic architecture by the loose connection and independence of individual services. This enables independent testing, deployment, and scaling of microservices. 

Let’s discuss the benefits of microservices architecture in more detail. 

Microservices architecture benefits

Faster updates

Microservices architecture makes it easier to develop and roll out changes in code. Small teams working on particular microservices can test, deploy, and launch updates without impacting other services and without waiting for updates to other components. The independence of microservices means that changes in code are unlikely to conflict with other parts of code or cause service outages. 

In this way, microservices facilitate the CI/CD/CD (Continuous Integration, Continuous Delivery, Continuous Deployment) development approach. The relative isolation of particular microservices means that both new features and security updates can be rolled out on a continuous basis. Atlassian, for example, has moved from launching updates once a week to two-three times a day. This enabled them to react to issues and expand their services faster. 

Improved reliability and smooth bug fixes

Microservices architecture is resilient to faults – if one service fails, it will not cause a failure of an entire system. This also makes it possible to update and restart individual microservices without turning off the entire system. 

This means that bugs in key systems can be fixed quickly and smoothly. Your customers will barely notice the update. This is one of the reasons why large companies like Netflix, Amazon, Spotify, or eBay all shifted to microservices – if your product must be continuously online, service outages and shortfalls are not an acceptable option. 

As Adam Gluck, Senior Software Engineer at Uber summarizes: 

“Overall system reliability goes up in a microservice architecture. A single service can go down (and be rolled back) without taking down the whole system.” 

Scalability

Scalability concerns are the main reason why businesses across different industries move to microservices. For instance, Amazon made the shift because its rapidly expanding monolithic codebase could not be effectively scaled or updated. The monolithic structure hindered their ability to innovate and keep up with growing demands.

Similarly, Uber transitioned to microservices because their monolithic app made it difficult to fix bugs, launch new features, and integrate operations worldwide. The complexity of managing a single codebase across multiple geographic locations and services became unmanageable. 

Outstanding scalability and flexibility have made microservices the go-to choice for rapidly expanding businesses. By breaking down applications into smaller, independent services, companies can scale specific components as needed, deploy updates more frequently, and respond to issues more swiftly. 

What’s more, scaling microservices can be pretty cheap. Technologies like Docker and Kubernetes are great at running on cheap, off-the-shelf hardware. Microservices deployed into a Kubernetes cluster enable you to build an enterprise hosting environment with a couple of used computers. This advantage makes microservices a viable option not only for large companies, but also for individuals and startups. 

Technological agnosticism

Traditional applications typically share a common tech stack. That is, every component has to use the same tech stack and database, even when it would be more productive to use a different one. 

With a microservices architecture, developers are free to choose the most efficient tech stack and architecture for each service. The services then communicate through common REST APIs and message brokers. 

This means that a microservice can be built on Java, Python, Rust, or any other programming language suitable for a particular task. This also means that your developers can use the tools and languages they know best, which reduces the learning curve and simplifies the development process. 

Small teams

Microservices development approach splits developers into small development teams, each responsible for one or two microservices. By clearly defining obligations, this approach promotes organization and responsibility among developers. It also allows management to effectively monitor task completion.

From a developer's perspective, small teams also make communication and collaboration within the team easier. All key processes can be worked on within the team, and developers don’t need to wait for other teams’ decisions or approval. Ultimately, smaller teams lead to greater productivity and better quality output.

In this way, microservices approach to development directly follows Agile best practices. As Scrum Guidelines note: 

“In general, we have found that smaller teams communicate better and are more productive. If Scrum Teams become too large, they should consider reorganizing into multiple cohesive Scrum Teams, each focused on the same product.”

All the advantages of microservices notwithstanding, this architecture also has a fair share of disadvantages. 

Disadvantages of microservices

Increased complexity

One of the most significant disadvantages of microservices is an increase of complexity. Large and complex applications may consist of thousands of components, with each running on a separate tech stack and at its own pace. This makes microservices more complex to manage and keep track of on several levels.

• Service coordination. You will need to maintain stable communication and compatibility between components. This implies not just writing extra lines of code – managing microservices requires a well-defined strategy, which includes maintaining clear borders between services, keeping track of versions of services, investing in strategic automation, and improving collaboration between teams. In most cases, training or recruiting DevOps teams that will systematically oversee microservices is a must. 

• Communication issues. Due to high load on communication protocols, microservices can struggle with long response times (network latency) and high network traffic. Errors may also occur when multiple microservices are communicating with each other. To prevent this from happening, you need to maintain robust inter-service communication, including the use of asynchronous communication to decouple the services. 

• Testing and debugging challenges. Although testing and debugging microservices separately is not complicated technically, each microservice should be tested and debugged in an individualized manner, which takes time. On top of that, to test and debug a whole microservices app, you’ll need to get access to all servers and devices that are a part of the distributed structure of the app. To streamline testing and debugging, you may need to invest in testing tools like contract testing and mocking frameworks. 

• Inconsistencies. The diversity of frameworks and separate databases that are used for each microservice do not cause problems if maintained properly. However, this may cause issues with data synchronization and database migration due to unsynchronized updates of separate databases. On top of that, it can make it difficult for new developers to understand your app and can make it complicated to maintain as the time goes. Developing standards like coding conventions and directory structures is highly recommended. 

The challenges of complexity can be so big that some companies have recently decided to partly revert back to monolith structure. Amazon Prime Video, for instance, reverted back to monolith after discovering that a monolithic approach delivers superior performance compared to microservices. 

This made harsh critics of microservices like David Heinemeir Hansson to disqualify microservices entirely: 

“Now the real-world results of all this theory are finally in, and it's clear that in practice, microservices pose perhaps the biggest siren song for needlessly complicating your system. And serverless only makes it worse.”

Increased costs

All in all, microservices architecture may be substantially more expensive. This includes not only the higher costs during the initial phase of development, but also hidden costs of maintaining a microservices ecosystem. Some of the costs that have to be planned for include: 

• Infrastructure and talent spending. Even though initial infrastructure investment for microservices can be modest, microservices will demand more resources over time, and each will need its own CPU and runtime environment. If each service has its own tech stack, you will need experts proficient in all these technologies to maintain the system effectively. 

• DevOps teams. You will need a group of people who will set up and oversee a complex distributed system. 

• SWAT team. You will likely need people who are able to monitor the state of the system and react to problems. 

• Cost of changes. If the system consists of a lot of tiny microservices, changes have to be made to several ones at the same time, which results in duplicated costs. 

Nonetheless, as the experience of some companies shows, microservices tend to bring more cost savings  over time provided that the management processes are effective. 

Security issues

Microservices architecture implies that you need to safeguard each small service that normally runs in the cloud. While it’s certainly possible and realistic to ensure the security of microservices, this type of architecture presents notable security challenges, including the increased number of attack points and the difficulty of overseeing different security protocols within different services. While there are multiple tools designed to help ensure security of microservices (see Compass from Atlassian for example), it’s important to understand that investments into security need to be your key focus point when designing a microservices application. 

Microservices in banking: a case study

A financial company from UAE reached out to Apiko with a request to develop a fintech app based on a microservices architecture. The app would enable users to review financial offers, primarily loans, from various banks and choose what fits their requirements best. 

The banks, on the other hand, would get access to a separate web application. They would be able to review the credit score of the loanee, manage their offers, and provide comprehensive information about their policies. The bank would also be able to evaluate the overall interest rate, analyze the funnel of applications, and track the customer retention rate. 

The company’s request was to develop a microservices fintech architecture due to their willingness to avoid common disadvantages of the monolith. In collaboration with the client, we developed a relatively complex yet effective fintech architecture that will ensure stability and flawless performance of their fintech solution. 

Microservices or monolith: A summary table

Here is a brief summary table outlining the key differences between monolithic and microservices architectures for business adoption. 

 

Why use microservices architecture: final thought

To sum up, microservices architecture is an excellent choice, particularly for businesses undergoing rapid growth and expansion. The advantages of microservices include superior scalability, faster development timelines, and alignment with agile development principles. Nonetheless, microservices also present serious challenges, mainly due to an increase in complexity and the corresponding need for DevOps oversight. 

At Apiko, we have extensive experience in building both monolithic and microservices solutions for businesses in fintech, construction, healthcare, and other industries. If you’re still unsure whether microservices or monolith is the better choice for your business case, don’t hesitate to reach out! We provide professional IT consultations that help our clients make responsible decisions before committing to serious investment.