Monorepo — a popular solution, but not universal
In recent years, monorepo has become one of the most discussed approaches in web development. It is actively used by large companies, frequently mentioned in technical blogs and presentations, and the tools around it are rapidly evolving. This has created the illusion that monorepo is a universal standard suitable for any project.
In practice, this is not the case. In 2026, monorepo is a tool whose effectiveness directly depends on the scale of the product, team structure, architecture, and maturity of processes. Our team regularly encounters projects where the transition to monorepo either did not yield the expected effect or created new points of tension in development.
In this article, we will discuss in which cases monorepo is truly justified and when it becomes a source of technical and organizational debt.
What is Monorepo and why is it used
Monorepo — this is an approach where all the code of a project or a group of projects is stored in one repository. This can include:
- frontend and backend,
- multiple microservices,
- shared libraries,
- infrastructure scripts.
The main idea of monorepo is a unified development space, where:
- code is easily reused,
- changes are synchronized,
- dependencies between modules are transparent.
For mature teams, this provides tangible advantages, especially on complex products with a large number of interrelated components.
Why Monorepo has become so popular
The popularity of monorepo can be explained by several factors:
- Growth of complex web products
Modern applications rarely limit themselves to just one frontend and API. Monorepo helps keep everything in one context. - Development of tooling
Tools for monorepo (Nx, Turborepo, Bazel, etc.) have significantly simplified the management of builds, testing, and dependencies. - Example of large companies
Google, Meta, Uber, and other companies actively use monorepo, which has built trust in the approach.
However, it is important to understand: the context of large companies is very different from most commercial projects.
When Monorepo Really Works
Monorepo shows the best results in the following scenarios:
- the product is developed long-term (2–3 years or more),
- the team is large enough and technically mature,
- there are clear architectural boundaries between modules,
- CI/CD, code review, and automated checks are set up,
- there is responsibility for architecture (Senior / Architect).
In such conditions, a monorepo reduces code duplication, simplifies refactoring, and makes system development more predictable.
When Monorepo Becomes a Problem
In practice, we often see projects where a monorepo is implemented "as a trend," without considering the real context. In such cases, the following difficulties arise:
- increased build and test times,
- conflicts of changes between teams,
- complication of onboarding new developers,
- reduction of team autonomy,
- growth of cognitive load.
These problems are particularly acute in small and medium teams, where architectural discipline has not yet been established.
Table 1. When monorepo is justified and when it is not
|
Criterion |
Monorepo is suitable |
Monorepo is not suitable |
|
Team size |
10+ developers |
2–5 developers |
|
Product life cycle |
Long-term |
Short / MVP |
|
Architecture |
Clear modules |
Strong coupling |
|
Processes |
CI/CD, reviews, tests |
Minimal processes |
|
Responsibility |
There is an architect |
There is no architecture owner |
Monorepo and technical debt
One of the hidden risks of a monorepo — accelerated accumulation of technical debt in the absence of strict rules. When everything is in one repository, there is a temptation:
- to directly use internal modules,
- to violate boundaries of responsibility,
- to postpone refactoring "for later".
As a result, the monorepo turns into a large interconnected monolith, where any change affects too many parts of the system.
Mature teams lay down in advance:
- import rules,
- architectural contracts,
- automatic dependency checks.
Without this, the monorepo starts to hinder product development.
Alternatives to Monorepo
It is important to understand that monorepo — is not the only way to organize code. Depending on the project context, more effective options may include:
- Multirepo — separate repositories for services,
- Hybrid approach — monorepo for core parts and separate repositories for peripherals,
- Modular monolith in one repository, but with strict boundaries.
The choice of approach should always be based on business goals, not just on technical trends.
Table 2. Monorepo vs Multirepo
|
Parameter |
Monorepo |
Multirepo |
|
Dependency Control |
High |
Medium |
|
Team Autonomy |
Lower |
Higher |
|
Onboarding |
More Complex |
Easier |
|
Scaling |
Requires discipline |
Natural |
|
Support |
Centralized |
Decentralized |
How we approach architecture selection
In our team, there are no universal recommendations like "everyone needs a monorepo." We always start with analysis:
- product scale,
- speed of changes,
- team structure,
- development horizon.
Only after this is a decision made — whether a monorepo, hybrid model, or multiple repositories are needed. This approach helps avoid architectural mistakes that are difficult and expensive to fix in the future.
Conclusions
Monorepo in 2026 — is a powerful but demanding tool. It works great in mature teams and complex products, but can become a source of problems in projects without clear architecture and processes.
The main criterion for choosing — is not the popularity of the approach, but the context of the specific product and team.