Architecture Patterns Comparison

Click each pattern for a case study

Monolithic
UI Layer Business Logic Data Access
🗄️ Single DB

Characteristics

  • Single deployment unit
  • Shared codebase
  • Simple to debug

Best For

  • Early-stage products
  • Small teams (2-8 devs)
  • Simple domains

Trade-offs

✓ Simple, fast development, easy testing
✗ Scaling limitations, tech lock-in, risky deploys
Case Study: Basecamp
Basecamp has famously run as a monolithic Ruby on Rails application for 20+ years, serving millions of users. Their team argues that monoliths are ideal when a small team owns the entire product and values development speed over independent scaling.
SOA
User Svc
Order Svc
Payment Svc
Enterprise Service Bus
🗄️ Shared DB

Characteristics

  • Service-based decomposition
  • ESB communication
  • Shared databases possible

Best For

  • Enterprise systems
  • Legacy modernization
  • Large organizations

Trade-offs

✓ Modular, reusable services
✗ ESB complexity, shared DB coupling
Case Study: Enterprise Banking
Many large banks adopted SOA in the 2000s to modernize COBOL mainframes. Services for accounts, transactions, and compliance communicate via an ESB, allowing gradual migration while maintaining shared data consistency.
Microservices
Auth
DB
Search
DB
Cart
DB
Pay
DB
← API →

Characteristics

  • Independent deployment
  • Own databases per service
  • Direct API communication

Best For

  • Large teams, complex domains
  • High-scale products
  • Frequent independent releases

Trade-offs

✓ Independent scaling, tech flexibility, team autonomy
✗ Operational complexity, distributed debugging
Case Study: Netflix
Netflix migrated from a monolith to 700+ microservices to handle 200M+ subscribers globally. Each service (recommendations, streaming, billing) scales independently, enabling teams to deploy thousands of times per day.