Comparing Monolith vs Microservices in a System Design Interview Discussion

Monolithic architecture and microservices architecture are two fundamental approaches to designing software systems.

In a system design interview, beginners are often asked to discuss these architectures and decide which fits a given scenario.

This guide will compare Monolith vs Microservices in simple terms, highlight pros/cons, use-case comparisons, and real-world examples.

By the end, you'll know when to choose each approach and how to explain your choice with confidence.

What is a Monolithic Architecture?

A monolithic architecture is a unified model for designing a software application as one single, indivisible unit. All components (UI, business logic, database operations, etc.) are part of one codebase and are deployed together.

Single deployable unit: The entire application (frontend + backend + database calls) is packaged and deployed as one piece.
Tightly coupled components: Different modules (like user authentication, product catalog, payments in an e-commerce app) are interwoven and depend on each other within one program.
One database (often): Monoliths often use a single shared database for all data.
Example: A small e-commerce site where the user interface, product logic, and order processing are all part of one WebApp.war file deployed on a server.

In practice, a monolith can be simple to build and test because everything is in one place. However, as it grows, it can become large and complex to manage.

What is a Microservices Architecture?

A microservices architecture breaks an application into many small, independent services. Each service runs on its own, handles a specific business capability, and communicates with other services via APIs or messaging.

Multiple independent services: For example, an e-commerce app might have separate services for user accounts, product catalog, shopping cart, orders, payments, etc. Each service is its own mini-application.
Loosely coupled: Services are decoupled and can function (and fail) independently. They interact through network calls (HTTP requests, message queues, etc.), not direct function calls.
Independent deployment: Each microservice can be developed, tested, and deployed on its own schedule without requiring a full application deployment.
Own databases: Often each service has its own database or data store, optimized for its needs, avoiding a single monolithic database.
Example: The same e-commerce split into services – e.g. User Service, Product Service, Order Service, Payment Service – each running in its own process/container.

Microservices essentially modularize the system at a high level, which can improve flexibility and scalability. However, they introduce complexity in orchestrating many moving parts.

Key Differences Between Monolith and Microservices

For beginners, it helps to see side-by-side differences of monoliths vs microservices:

Deployment: Monolith = one deployable application. Microservices = many small apps deployed separately.
Scaling: Monolith scales as a whole (e.g., replicating the entire app on multiple servers). Microservices allow independent scaling – you can scale just the heavily used services without scaling the entire system.
Development Team Structure: Monoliths often have a single team or a few teams working on one codebase. Microservices align with multiple small teams (often “two-pizza teams” as Amazon calls them) each owning a service. This enables teams to work in parallel without stepping on each other.
Dependencies: In a monolith, modules are directly linked (one function call can affect others). In microservices, interactions are via network calls, which adds latency but isolates failures to one service.
Technology Stack: Monolithic systems usually use one tech stack (one programming language/framework throughout). Microservices allow polyglot tech – each service could use a different language or database if appropriate (though it adds complexity).
Release Cycle: Monoliths require coordinating one big release for any change. Microservices support continuous deployment – each service can update independently, leading to more frequent releases of features in smaller increments.
Testing and Debugging: Monoliths allow end-to-end testing in one go and simpler debugging (all code in one place). Microservices require testing each service plus integration testing for their interactions. Debugging can be harder because you might need to trace a request across many services.
Failure Impact: In a monolith, a bug or crash in one part can potentially bring down the entire application (no isolation). In microservices, if one service goes down, that specific functionality is impacted but the rest of the system can still work (though possibly in a degraded mode), improving overall reliability.

Understanding these differences is key in an interview discussion. Next, let's explore the pros and cons of each approach, and when they are suitable.

Pros and Cons of Monolithic Architecture

Pros (Advantages of Monolith):

Simplicity to develop and test: For a small application, having everything in one codebase is straightforward. You can run the whole app on your laptop easily, and do end-to-end tests without setting up a complex distributed environment.
Easy initial development: You only set up one project. This makes it faster to get an MVP (Minimum Viable Product) up and running. For example, if you need to launch quickly, a monolith is often the right decision.
Simple deployment: You deploy one artifact (like a single WAR file or one Docker container). There's no need for orchestrating multiple services. This is great for quick launches or proofs-of-concept where speed is more important than perfect modularity.
Performance (within the app): Calls between modules are in-process function calls (no network latency as in microservices). Data is in one database, so joins and multi-module operations can be faster and simpler (no calling across services).
Less DevOps overhead: You don't need a complex infrastructure. No need for service discovery, API gateways, or managing dozens of servers for each tiny service. With one app, it’s easier to configure logging, monitoring, etc., in one place.
Better for small teams: If you have a very small team (say 2-5 developers), managing a microservices ecosystem can be overkill. Those developers can move quicker in a single codebase .

Cons (Drawbacks of Monolith):

Limited scalability (one-size-fits-all scaling): You must scale the entire application together. If one part of the app (e.g., the reporting module) is CPU intensive, you have to replicate the whole app to scale it, consuming more resources, since you can't just scale that piece alone.
Slower development as app grows: A large monolithic codebase can become unwieldy. Adding a small feature means understanding a huge system. Builds and tests get slower with size. It can slow down development speed as the team and code grow.
Risk of whole app failure: Because components are tightly integrated, a bug in one module (say a null pointer exception in the payment logic) could crash the entire application or make the whole system unavailable. There’s no isolation between components.
Big bang deployments: Any change, however small, requires re-deploying the entire application. This can be risky and time-consuming (you have to ensure the whole app is stable for one change). It also means you might deploy less frequently, accumulating bigger changes per release.
Technology lock-in: In a monolith, it’s hard to mix technologies. If you built it in Java, the whole app is Java. Adopting a new tech stack or upgrading a framework means doing it for the whole application, which can be expensive and risky.
Maintenance challenges at scale: When many developers work in the same codebase, merge conflicts and coordination efforts increase. It’s harder to enforce modular boundaries within a single code repository as more people contribute, which can lead to a tangled “big ball of mud” if not managed well.

Use-Cases where Monolith is Favored:

Simple or Early-stage applications: If the product is small-scale or you're in early development, a monolith is often ideal. You likely don’t need microservices for a simple app.
Startup MVP / Prototype: Need to validate a business idea quickly? Monolith lets you develop fast and get to market. (As the saying goes: “build it fast, change it later if needed.”)
Small Team / Limited resources: One team can handle a monolith without the overhead of managing multiple services. If only a handful of engineers are available, it's practical to keep the architecture simple.
Tightly coupled domain: If your app’s functionality is all interrelated and won’t benefit from being separated, a monolith might make more sense until proven otherwise.

In fact, many experts advise starting with a monolith first.

Martin Fowler observed that almost all successful microservice adopters began with a monolith that grew large and was later broken apart, whereas attempts to build a complex system with microservices from scratch often “ended up in serious trouble”.

This “Monolith-First” strategy is common: get something working and proven, then split it if needed.

Pros and Cons of Microservices Architecture

Pros (Advantages of Microservices):

Independent scaling: Each service can be scaled out as needed without scaling the entire application. If your User Service is fine but Order Service is overloaded, you can add more instances of Order Service only. This efficient use of resources is great for high-scale systems.
Faster, independent deployments: Teams can deploy updates to their microservice without waiting for a global release. This enables continuous deployment and more agility (e.g., Amazon moved from weekly deployments to deploying code to production thousands of times a day using service-oriented approaches).
Fault isolation (better resilience): If one microservice fails, it doesn't necessarily crash the whole system. For example, if the Recommendation Service has a bug, the core product purchase flow can still operate. This improves overall uptime and reliability.
Technology flexibility: Each service can use the tech stack best suited for its function. One service could use Python for machine learning, another uses Node.js for real-time websockets, etc. Teams aren’t forced into a one-size-fits-all technology choice.
Aligned with autonomous teams: Microservices allow large engineering organizations to split into smaller autonomous teams (each owning one or a few services). This promotes better ownership and can increase team happiness and productivity.
Improved maintainability (in the long run): Each service is a smaller codebase, which can be easier to understand and modify in isolation. New team members can get up to speed on one service quickly, rather than needing to understand a huge monolith.
Better scaling of development: Multiple teams can work in parallel on different services without causing merge conflicts or waiting on each other. This can speed up overall development for large projects.
Focused security and monitoring: You can enforce security at service boundaries and monitor services independently, potentially identifying performance bottlenecks or issues in one area of the application more easily than in a monolith.

Cons (Drawbacks of Microservices):

Increased complexity & overhead: A microservices system is essentially a distributed system. You now have to manage many moving parts: multiple codebases, numerous deployments, network communication, and inter-service coordination. This complexity is often called the “microservice premium” – an extra cost you pay to manage many services.
DevOps burden: To do microservices right, you need robust infrastructure (containers or VMs for each service, an orchestration platform like Kubernetes or cloud auto-scaling, CI/CD pipelines for each service, logging, monitoring across services, etc.). The overhead in tooling and devops is non-trivial. Small teams can be overwhelmed by this overhead.
Network latency and failures: Unlike in-process calls of a monolith, microservices communicate over a network. This introduces latency for each call and the possibility of network issues. You have to build for network resilience (handling timeouts, retries, fallbacks). A simple function call in a monolith might become an HTTP call in microservices which is slower and can fail in new ways.
Data consistency and transactions: In a monolith with a single DB, it's easier to do ACID transactions across the whole app. In microservices, data is distributed. Ensuring consistency across services (e.g., an order service and payment service) can be complex. You may need techniques like distributed transactions or sagas.
Harder testing and debugging: With many services, testing an end-to-end feature requires deploying a bunch of services and their dependencies. Writing integration tests that cover multiple services is challenging. Debugging an issue might mean checking logs in several services to trace a request path. You’ll need sophisticated monitoring (like distributed tracing) to pinpoint problems.
Deployment complexity: While each service can deploy independently, ensuring compatibility (one service’s change might require another service update) can be tricky. You might need to manage versioning of APIs. Orchestrating changes that span multiple services requires coordination.
Potential for duplication: Sometimes different services might duplicate some logic or data (since they're independent), which could lead to inconsistency or extra effort to maintain. Functionality that would be a simple function call in a monolith might need to be implemented in multiple services or as a shared library.
Steep learning curve for beginners: For an interview or a small project, microservices can be overwhelming if you haven't experienced building distributed systems. There are many design patterns (circuit breakers, service discovery, etc.) to learn to do it properly.

Use-Cases where Microservices are Favored:

Large, complex applications: If you’re designing the next Netflix or Amazon, with many distinct functionalities and a need to handle millions of users, microservices shine. They handle complexity by dividing it. For example, Netflix uses over 700 microservices in production to manage different parts of its platform.
Need for high scalability and availability: When specific parts of the system have variable load. E.g., an online video platform might need to scale the streaming service massively during peak hours, but the user profile service can remain minimal. Microservices let you target scale where needed, and also ensure one component failing (login service down) doesn’t take everything offline.
Multiple development teams or third-party integrations: In a big company with many teams, microservices allow each to build and deploy their piece independently. It also works if parts of the system might be outsourced or handled by different vendors – they can develop their service in isolation.
Polyglot requirements: If certain tasks are better suited to specific languages or databases (for example, using a graph database for a social network friend recommendations service, but an SQL database for billing), microservices let you mix technologies without rebuilding the entire app.
Systems requiring modularity and flexibility: If features may need to be added and experimented with in isolation, microservices allow that. Teams can try new features in a small service and if it doesn’t work out, it won’t clutter a monolith; they can remove or replace that service easily.

Many big companies eventually move to microservices as they scale. However, it's worth noting that microservices are not a silver bullet. They solve some problems of large systems but introduce new ones. It's about choosing the right tool for the job.

Real-World Examples and Case Studies

Understanding how real companies use monoliths and microservices can solidify these concepts:

Netflix (Monolith to Microservices): Netflix started as a monolithic application (for streaming and DVD rentals). In 2008, a database corruption in their monolith caused days of downtime. This failure pushed Netflix to migrate their entire system to a cloud-based microservices architecture. They broke the application into hundreds of microservices (each responsible for a specific function, like user profiles, recommendations, billing, etc.). This change let Netflix achieve near 24/7 availability and scale to over 200 million users globally. Today, if one Netflix microservice fails, users might not even notice because the rest of the system remains unaffected – e.g., if the recommendation service is down, streaming still works. Netflix’s migration is often cited as a model example of microservices enabling massive scale and rapid development.
Amazon (Monolith to Microservices): Amazon.com originally was built as a two-tier monolith (a big application talking to a database) when it was a small online bookstore. As Amazon’s business grew, the monolithic architecture started slowing down development and deployment. Amazon engineers found that making changes was risky and time-consuming due to the tight coupling. They famously adopted a microservices approach with the “two-pizza team” rule – each microservice is owned by a small team that could be fed with two pizzas (roughly 6-10 people). They also adopted a “you build it, you run it” philosophy: teams fully own the operation of their services. By breaking the monolith into many services (and later leveraging cloud and AWS), Amazon was able to scale its engineering organization and site reliability. This transition helped Amazon handle its massive product catalog and traffic with greater agility. Rob Brigham, Senior Manager at AWS, explained that startups often use a monolith-first approach to move quickly, but as the project matures and the codebase grows, the monolith adds overhead and slows down development. Amazon’s shift to microservices removed these bottlenecks and enabled the company’s explosive growth. Learn how to design e-commerce system.
Uber (Monolith to Microservices): Uber’s early system in 2010 was a monolithic application focused on a single city (just connecting drivers and riders in San Francisco). This was fine at first for their limited features. But as Uber expanded to new cities and added services like Uber Eats, Uber Freight, etc., the monolith became a bottleneck – developers were afraid a small change could break the entire system due to many interdependencies. Uber then transitioned to a service-oriented architecture, breaking the platform into many microservices (dispatch, pricing, payments, etc.). This helped them scale development and deploy new features faster. However, Uber also discovered challenges: at one point they had 500+ services, which made it hard to manage and locate the correct service for a task, leading them to implement tooling (like a unified communication protocol) to reduce confusion. Uber’s story shows microservices can enable hyper-growth, but require good management to avoid chaos. Learn how to design Uber.
Startup with a Monolith (Monolith-First): It’s not just about big companies. Many startups begin with a monolith by design. For example, a small team building a new SaaS product might keep the entire app (frontend + backend + DB) in one codebase initially. This allows rapid iteration and simplicity. As features expand and the user base grows, they might identify performance bottlenecks or modules that would benefit from being separate. At that point (maybe when the team grows or scaling issues emerge), they can peel off certain functionality into microservices. This strategy is echoed by experts – build a well-structured monolith first and split it when needed. Martin Fowler calls this avoiding the upfront cost of the "Microservice Premium" until it’s justified by complexity. Many successful systems (including the ones above) followed this evolutionary path.

These examples illustrate a common theme: start simple, then evolve.

Companies often begin monolithic for speed, then migrate to microservices as their product and teams outgrow the monolithic approach.

In system design interviews, referencing such examples (Netflix, Amazon, etc.) can demonstrate your understanding of why an architecture is chosen.

When to Choose Monolith vs Microservices (Best Practices)

One of the most important skills in a system design interview is knowing which architecture fits the scenario and why. Here are some best practice guidelines to help you decide and justify your choice:

When to Choose a Monolithic Architecture

Early Stage or MVP: If you're designing a system that is new or small-scale, propose a monolith. For an MVP or a service with a limited feature set and user base, a monolith lets you deliver functionality quickly without over-engineering.
Simple Domain & Low Scalability Requirements: If the problem domain is straightforward and you don’t anticipate high traffic or complex scaling needs initially, a monolith is usually sufficient. For example, a basic blog platform or an internal tool for a company could be monolithic.
Tight Deadline & Small Team: In an interview, if the prompt implies you have a small team or need to launch fast, mention that a monolith would minimize overhead. With few developers, it's more practical to focus on one codebase rather than coordinate multiple services.
Evolving Requirements (unclear boundaries): At the beginning of a project, you might not know the best way to separate concerns. It can be risky to split into microservices without knowing the domain well (you might split wrong and then have to re-architect again). Starting monolithic allows you to find the natural boundaries as the system grows, and then later you can modularize. This aligns with the idea “you ain’t gonna need it (YAGNI)” early on – don't implement complexity (like microservices) until it's necessary.
Example best practice answer: "Given this is a brand-new product with modest requirements, I would start with a monolithic architecture for simplicity. It will enable faster development and deployment initially. We can always refactor into microservices later when we have more clarity on performance bottlenecks and module boundaries."

When to Choose a Microservices Architecture

Large Scale & High Traffic from Day One: If you’re designing a system that you know needs to handle huge scale or has very distinct components (e.g., an existing successful product or a platform like say designing "Netflix 2.0"), microservices might be warranted upfront. In an interview, if the question is about designing a known large system (Twitter, YouTube, etc.), interviewers expect you to discuss a microservices or distributed approach for scalability.
Independent Features/Modules: When the system clearly has separate pieces that have different scaling profiles or update cycles, microservices are a good choice. For example, in an online game platform, the matchmaking service, user profile service, and chat service might all have different loads and can be scaled or updated independently.
Multiple Teams or Third-Party Integrations: If the scenario involves multiple teams or later expanding the engineering force, mention that microservices enable parallel development. Each team can own a service without blocking others. Also, if some features might be handled by an external team or service (say, using a third-party payment service), your architecture will naturally be service-oriented.
Need for High Availability: For mission-critical systems where uptime is crucial, microservices can increase resiliency. Explain that by isolating services, a failure in one area (e.g., search function) won’t completely take down the entire platform – this can be a reason to choose microservices for a highly available system.
Polyglot or Specialized Requirements: If certain parts of the system require a special technology or heavy computation (maybe one module needs GPU processing, or a specific database type), microservices let you segregate that. In an interview, if you identify a component with unique requirements, you can point out that making it a separate service would be beneficial.
Example best practice answer: "Our system has clearly distinct components and a requirement to handle millions of users concurrently. I would use a microservices architecture so that each component (authentication, user profile, content feed, notifications) is its own service. This way, we can scale each service independently – for instance, the feed service can have more instances than the profile service if it faces heavier load – and deploy updates to each feature without affecting the others. This approach also improves fault isolation, so a bug in the notification service wouldn't crash the entire app, which is important for high availability."

Recommended Courses

Additional Tips for Interviews

Discuss Evolution: A nuanced answer might be not to choose strictly one or the other but to outline an evolution. For example, "Start with a modular monolith (well-structured code) and as the system grows, gradually split critical components into microservices." Interviewers appreciate understanding of evolutionary architecture – that you can start simple and add complexity when justified.
Acknowledge Trade-offs: Whichever you choose, mention the downsides and how you would mitigate them. If you choose microservices, say something about handling the added complexity (like setting up proper monitoring, using an API gateway, etc.). If you choose monolith, mention that "this design should suffice until X scale, after which we might need to consider breaking it into services to avoid the monolith becoming a bottleneck."
Use Real-world references wisely: It’s impressive to reference that "Netflix migrated to microservices to solve their scaling issues after a major outage " or "Amazon’s two-pizza team approach influenced their microservices adoption " as part of justification. It shows you are aware of industry practices. Just ensure the example fits the question context.
Clarity for Beginners: Even as you discuss these concepts, keep explanations simple (just as we did here). In an interview, clarity of thought is key. You might say: "In simple terms, a monolith is one big app, microservices are many little apps. Monolith is easier to start with, microservices handle big scale better." Then expand with your reasoning.
Consider Hybrid Approaches: Sometimes a modular monolith (a monolith structured in separate modules but deployed together) can be a middle ground to mention. Or a service-oriented architecture (SOA) if relevant. But for beginners, sticking to the main two and the idea of evolving from one to the other is usually enough.

Conclusion

In a system design interview, there is no one-size-fits-all answer for monolith vs microservices – it depends on the context. A good approach is to demonstrate that you understand the trade-offs.

For small, new, or fast-growing projects, a monolithic architecture offers simplicity and speed.

As the system grows in complexity and scale, transitioning to microservices can provide the needed flexibility and robustness, albeit with additional complexity. Citing real-world journeys (like Netflix's move to microservices or a startup sticking with a monolith initially) can back up your points.

Remember, interviewers are looking for your reasoning, not just buzzwords. So compare the options, discuss pros and cons, and make a justified recommendation. Good luck with your system design interview!