Microservices have become the default recommendation for modern software architecture.
Ask a group of developers how they would build a new SaaS platform, and chances are someone will suggest:
- Microservices
- Kubernetes
- Event-driven architecture
- Service mesh
- Distributed tracing
But here's the question:
Does a startup with 5–10 engineers and a few thousand users actually need all of that?
In most cases, the answer is no.
The Industry's Microservices Obsession
Many of our architectural decisions are influenced by success stories from companies like Netflix, Amazon, and Uber.
These organizations operate at enormous scale.
They have:
- Hundreds or thousands of engineers
- Independent product teams
- Massive traffic volumes
- Complex deployment requirements
Microservices solve real problems for companies operating at that level.
The mistake happens when smaller organizations adopt the same architecture without having the same problems.
The Hidden Cost of Microservices
Microservices promise flexibility and scalability.
What they don't advertise is the complexity that comes with them.
A simple feature may require:
- Multiple service updates
- API versioning
- Network communication
- Monitoring and logging
- Distributed tracing
- Additional deployment pipelines
What was once a function call becomes a network request.
What was once a local transaction becomes a distributed transaction.
Complexity moves from code to infrastructure.
And infrastructure complexity is expensive.
The Distributed Monolith Problem
One of the most common anti-patterns in modern software development is the distributed monolith.
The system consists of many services, but they remain tightly coupled.
As a result:
- Deployments become coordinated
- Teams cannot work independently
- Failures ripple through multiple services
- Debugging becomes painful
The organization inherits the drawbacks of microservices without gaining their benefits.
Why Monoliths Are Underrated
A monolith is not automatically bad.
In fact, a well-designed monolith offers several advantages:
Faster Development
Developers can focus on delivering features instead of managing service boundaries.
Simpler Operations
One application is often easier to deploy and maintain than twenty.
Easier Debugging
Following a request through a single codebase is significantly simpler than tracing it across multiple services.
Lower Costs
Less infrastructure generally means lower operational expenses.
For startups, speed and simplicity often matter more than theoretical scalability.
When Microservices Actually Make Sense
Microservices become valuable when:
✅ Multiple teams need independent deployments
✅ Different parts of the system scale differently
✅ Organizational complexity requires clear ownership boundaries
✅ The monolith is becoming a bottleneck to business growth
Notice that "because it's modern" is not on the list.
Start Simple, Evolve Later
One of the best engineering principles is:
"Build for today's requirements, not tomorrow's assumptions."
Many startups spend months preparing for scale they may never reach.
Meanwhile, competitors with simpler architectures are shipping features, learning from customers, and growing their businesses.
The goal isn't to build the most sophisticated architecture.
The goal is to build the simplest architecture that solves the problem.
Sometimes that means microservices.
But for most startups, it means starting with a monolith.
And that's okay.
What Do You Think?
If you were building a new SaaS product today with a team of 5–10 engineers:
Monolith or Microservices?
Share your reasoning in the comments.