Next steps

This guide covered architectural and organizational patterns, trade-offs for key decisions, and governance concerns related to micro-frontends. The tables summarize the trade-offs of practices discussed in this document in terms of the following dimensions:

• Autonomy ‒ Each micro-frontend team's ability to independently evolve their implementation and release to end users.

• Consistency ‒ The overall experience of the application where each micro-frontend behaves as expected. High consistency means micro-frontends are consistent with the rest of the application and are not detrimental to the user experience of the overall application.

• Complexity ‒ The amount of infrastructure, code, and effort required to implement and test micro-frontends, the overall application, and governance controls.

Practice	Autonomy	Consistency	Complexity
Building with micro-frontends instead of monolithic applications	High	Medium	High

Code-sharing practices	Autonomy	Consistency	Complexity
Share nothing	High	Low	Low
Share cross-cutting concerns	Medium	High	Medium
Share business logic	Low	High	Medium
Share through libraries at build time	Medium	High	Low
Share at runtime	High	High	High

Micro-frontend discovery practices	Autonomy	Consistency	Complexity
Configure during application build	Low	High	Low
Server-side discovery	High	High	Medium
Client-side (runtime) discovery	High	High	Medium

View composition practices	Autonomy	Consistency	Complexity
Server-side composition	High	Medium	High
Edge-side composition	Medium	Medium	High
Client-side composition	High	Medium	Medium

To learn more about the concepts introduced in this guidance, see the Resources section.