This content originally appeared on DEV Community and was authored by Taha Majlesi Pour
We killed our micro-frontend project last quarter. Here’s why 👇
We didn’t make the call lightly. We had sunk months into splitting our React monolith, wiring up module federation, and selling leadership on “independent deployments.” But after living with it, the cost outweighed the benefit.
This isn’t a manifesto against micro-frontends — just an honest post-mortem of what went sideways for us.
📖 A Quick Story
Back in 2023, our team was buzzing with excitement 🚀. Micro-frontends promised autonomy, speed, and scalability. We pitched it, got buy-in, and started migrating.
Fast forward months later:
- Our pipelines multiplied ⚙️.
- Debugging felt like digging through digital archaeology 🕵️.
- UI drift turned our product into a patchwork quilt 🎨.
Lesson: Micro-frontends didn’t fail because the idea is bad. They failed for us because we weren’t the kind of team setup they’re built for.
✅ The Idea Looked Great on Paper
- Teams could ship without waiting on each other.
- Scaling would be cleaner.
- UI consistency would come from a shared design system.
And to be fair, some parts worked. Teams did move faster — at first.
❌ Where It Broke Down
1. ⚡ Too Much Overhead
Every micro-frontend meant another build pipeline, repo, and deployment config. Instead of freedom, we got a part-time DevOps job.
2. 🔀 Dependency Drift
One app upgraded to React 18, another was stuck on React 17. Shared libraries forked. Debugging became archaeology.
3. 🎨 UI Consistency Was a Mirage
Even with a design system, teams styled around it or “just tweaked” components. The app started to look like a collage.
4. 💻 Local Dev Was Brutal
Running the shell plus multiple micro-frontends crushed laptops. Stubbing helped, but it never felt smooth.
5. 🗓️ Coordination Didn’t Disappear
Autonomy didn’t replace alignment. Routing, shared state, release timing… meetings multiplied instead of shrinking.
🧠 Lessons We’re Taking With Us
- Splitting code is easy. Splitting teams and ownership is hard.
- Tooling (module federation, stubs, CI/CD) only covers so many cracks.
- Micro-frontends shine in very large orgs with very clear domain boundaries. We weren’t that.
🔮 What’s Next for Us
We’re not running back to the monolith blindly. Instead, we’re exploring:
- Modular Monolith: One repo, but strict boundaries via linting, folder structure, and clear ownership.
- Stronger Design System: A single source of truth that nobody can fork.
- Team Alignment First: Better communication rituals before chasing architectural silver bullets.
📌 Practical Takeaways
- Don’t adopt micro-frontends for the hype — adopt them if your org structure demands it.
- Always ask: “Are we solving people problems or just code problems?”
- Start smaller: modular monoliths can deliver 80% of the benefits with less pain.
- Measure velocity after migration. If you’re slower after 6 months, reconsider.
🎁 Something Extra (Resources)
- 📚 Micro-Frontend Anti-Patterns (Research Paper)
- 🛠️ Webpack Module Federation Docs
- 🖼️ Micro-Frontends in 2025: Are They Still Worth It?
🙌 More Like This? Let’s Connect!
📲 Follow me for more dev tips, tools, and trends!
- 📸 Instagram: @tahamjp
- 🧠 Dev.to: @tahamjp
- 🐦 X.com: @tahamjp
- 💬 Telegram Channel: The Intelligent Interface
🔑 Interface Insider (exclusive): Join the community – share, learn, and collaborate with other members!
Check out my latest dev articles and tutorials — updated weekly!
Let’s keep building cool stuff 🚀
This content originally appeared on DEV Community and was authored by Taha Majlesi Pour
Taha Majlesi Pour | Sciencx (2025-10-24T03:51:06+00:00) 💥 Why Micro-Frontends Failed Us (and What We’re Trying Next). Retrieved from https://www.scien.cx/2025/10/24/%f0%9f%92%a5-why-micro-frontends-failed-us-and-what-were-trying-next/
Please log in to upload a file.
There are no updates yet.
Click the Upload button above to add an update.