Microfrontends
We implement microfrontends: splitting a large frontend into independent parts that different teams develop and deploy separately, assembled into one application. Honestly upfront and this is key: microfrontends solve an organizational problem of LARGE companies with many teams needing independent deployment, but for one team or a mid project it is a SERIOUS EXCESSIVE complication — an ordinary monolithic frontend is simpler, faster and more reliable; microfrontends add dependency duplication, shared-state and UI-consistency problems, complex integration; and by themselves they do not speed up the product. We will honestly assess whether you have an organizational reason rather than implement them by fashion.
Microfrontends — overview
Microfrontends are an architectural approach where a single frontend is split into several independent parts (by domain/team), each developed, tested and deployed separately, then assembled into one application for the user (often via module federation — 1065). The goal is to give large organizations the ability for many teams to work in parallel and independently on one product without blocking. Honestly about 'this is about organization, not technology', this is key: microfrontends primarily solve an ORGANIZATIONAL problem — when many teams get in each other's way in one codebase and need independent deployment and autonomy. For one team or a small/mid project this problem does not exist, so microfrontends are pure over-engineering. We honestly assess: if you have one team, an ordinary monolithic frontend is almost always better. Honestly about the serious cost of complexity: microfrontends add many problems — dependency duplication (each part pulls its own, total weight grows), shared-state and inter-part communication difficulties, UI/design consistency (parts can drift visually), complex integration and testing of the whole, versioning. These are serious overheads justified only by the organization's scale. Honestly about 'do not speed up the product': microfrontends are about the speed of TEAMS' WORK (independent deployment), not the product's speed for the user (which they rather worsen due to duplication). Confusing this is a mistake. Honestly about the effect: for large organizations with many teams they give autonomy and independent deployment, but for others it is expensive needless complexity. Honestly about access: several teams, a genuine organizational need are required. An important boundary: this is microfrontends; module federation (the mechanism) — 1065; a monolithic frontend — the norm for one team; microservices (backend) — 1066/1067. Picture this: instead of 'teams blocking each other in a monolith' — independent parts for multi-team development, ONLY if you genuinely have many teams. The base price starts from 90,000 ₽ (depends on the number of parts).
Problems we solve
- Many teams get in each other's way in one frontend monolith (for the large).
- Independent deployment of parts by different teams is needed.
- You want microfrontends but have one team — it is excessive.
- Past microfrontends gave duplication and a 'drifted' UI.
What's included in the Microfrontends service
- An honest assessment: is there an organizational reason (many teams) or is it excessive
- Microfrontend implementation (splitting, independent deployment, assembly)
- Solving shared state, communication, UI consistency
- Controlling dependency duplication
- Honest boundaries (for large organizations; excessive for one team; the cost of complexity; do not speed up the product)
- A link with module federation (1065)
- Integration testing of the whole
- Handover and review with you
What you get
- Independent development and deployment of parts by many teams (for the large)
- Team autonomy without blocking in a monolith
- An honest assessment: for one team a monolith is better
- Honest boundaries (for large organizations; expensive complexity; do not speed up the product)
How the work goes: steps
- We assess the number of teams and the organizational need
- If justified — we implement microfrontends with UI/dependency control
- If not — we honestly recommend a monolithic frontend, set boundaries with you
Why PDV Expert
- Fixed price and timeline — no surprises on the invoice.
- Report and recommendations in plain language — clear without a technical background.
- In touch at every step and answering questions about the result.
FAQ
Microfrontends are modern, so they are better?
No, honestly: microfrontends solve an ORGANIZATIONAL problem of large companies — when many teams get in each other's way and need independent deployment. For one team or a mid project this problem does not exist, and microfrontends become pure over-engineering: dependency duplication, shared-state problems, a 'drifting' UI, complex integration. For one team an ordinary monolithic frontend is almost always better. We will honestly assess the need.
Will microfrontends speed up the site for users?
Rather no, honestly: they are about the speed of TEAMS' WORK (independent deployment, autonomy), not the product's speed for the user. Due to dependency duplication (each part pulls its own) the total weight can even grow, worsening user-facing speed. Confusing team autonomy with product performance is a mistake. We honestly separate: microfrontends are an organizational tool, not a user-facing accelerator.
Isn't it just splitting the frontend into parts?
No, honestly: microfrontends add serious complexity — dependency duplication, shared state and inter-part communication, UI consistency (parts drift visually), complex integration, testing of the whole, versioning. These are real overheads justified only by the scale of an organization with many teams. We honestly build in this cost rather than pass microfrontends off as easy 'splitting'.
About the provider
The «Microfrontends» service is provided by PDV Expert — a team specialising in «Tech trends». We work under contract and deliver a written report with recommendations.