We live in a time where applications keep growing, teams keep getting smaller, and deployment is still slow.
In this context, microfrontends seem like an obvious answer.
But if an AI can generate an architecture in seconds, who takes responsibility for the consequences of that choice?
The problem is not generating code.
The problem is sustaining decisions.
Microfrontends are a good solution in many contexts. The real question is: do they make sense in yours?
It is still common to treat this architecture as a silver bullet, when in some scenarios it is just complexity disguised as overengineering. That is why analyzing your ecosystem and its trade-offs is more important than following the latest trend.
Microfrontends promise autonomy. But when implemented without care, they often multiply problems instead of solving them.
What are microfrontends?
In simple terms, microfrontends apply the same idea of microservices to the frontend: splitting the system into independent parts, each with a clear responsibility.
Instead of one large frontend, the product is composed of domains. One project handles the dashboard, another handles forms, another handles checkout. Each team becomes the owner of a part of the product not just a screen.
This separation does not necessarily require different technologies. In most cases, teams use the same stack. What really changes is the boundary of responsibility and the level of isolation between parts.
When does it make sense to use microfrontends?
Make sense when the problem is no longer only technical, but also organizational.
They usually work better when:
the team is large
product domains are well defined
there is a real deployment bottleneck
team dependencies are slowing down delivery
In this scenario, splitting the frontend by domain allows each part to evolve more independently. Teams gain autonomy and delivery becomes more predictable.
When it does NOT make sense
Microfrontends are not a good choice when:
the application is small
there is only one team
the main problem is messy code
In these cases, a simpler architecture often solves the problem with less cost.
Before breaking the frontend into pieces, it is worth asking if the problem is really scale or just internal organization.
Technical strategies and risks
There are several approaches, and everything depends on scope and time. On the frontend, microfrontends affect both build time and runtime integration, especially in systems that handle a lot of data.
Module Federation, for example, allows sharing code as if it were an external library. This makes integration easier, but creates runtime dependency. The problem moves from “build is broken” to “version mismatch in production”.
Web Components help standardize behavior and reuse components across projects. Without this, the system becomes a group of different applications trying to look like a single product.
The main risks appear quickly:
duplicated dependencies
incompatible versions
higher observability cost
harder debugging
The more applications you have, the more discipline you need.
Where microfrontends work (and where they break)
Without contracts, there is no independence. There is chaos.
Microfrontends only work when there is a clear agreement between parts: what each domain does, what it exposes, and what it consumes.
The problem is rarely technical first. It is organizational.
Microfrontends help when the main issue is coordination between teams. If the problem is only technical, a good refactor may be more effective.
Standards are no longer optional. Design systems, versioning, and integration rules are not bureaucracy they prevent autonomy from becoming fragmentation.
A warning sign is version divergence between projects.
For example:
Checkout: React 18
Dashboard: React 15
Does it work? Maybe.
Is it healthy? Probably not.
A real scenario
An e-commerce company started with a single frontend responsible for everything: registration, user profile, checkout, and admin panel.
As the product grew, problems appeared:
more frequent deployments
code conflicts
slow reviews
delayed releases
The problem was not technical. It was organizational.
The solution was to split the frontend by domain:
checkout
user profile
admin panel
reports
Each project got its own repository and deployment pipeline. For the user, nothing changed. For the teams, everything changed.
The cost came later: more standards, stronger dependency control, and more concern about observability. Complexity did not disappear it was redistributed.
In the end, microfrontends are a valid solution in many contexts. But the trade-offs must be on the table.
Before adopting them, it is always worth asking:
Are you using microfrontends to scale your product…
or to hide technical debt?
Top comments (1)
If I build my code based on independent HTML pages that is count as microfrontend?