Monorepo vs. Polyrepo: Choosing the Right Repository Strategy for Scalable Development

|

In the world of software engineering, how you manage your codebase plays a crucial role in the productivity, scalability, and maintainability of your applications. Two prominent strategies dominate the repository landscape: Monorepo and Polyrepo. Each has its strengths and trade-offs, and choosing the right approach can significantly impact your team’s workflow, CI/CD pipelines, dependency management, and collaboration.

This article explores Monorepo and Polyrepo strategies, complete with definitions, comparisons, use cases, tooling support, and example structures to help you make an informed decision.

What Is a Monorepo?

A Monorepo (monolithic repository) is a single repository that contains code for multiple projects, services, or libraries—often across different domains or technologies. All teams and components work within this unified structure.

Example Structure of a Monorepo:

pgsql
/monorepo-root
├── apps/
│ ├── frontend-react/
│ └── backend-node/
├── libs/
│ ├── ui-components/
│ └── auth-utils/
├── tools/
│ └── ci-scripts/
├── package.json
└── tsconfig.base.json

Sample Code Snippet

Suppose you have a shared utility for authentication used across the frontend and backend.

libs/auth-utils/index.ts

ts
export function isTokenValid(token: string): boolean {
// Token validation logic
return token.startsWith("jwt-");
}

apps/frontend-react/Login.tsx

tsx

import { isTokenValid } from '../../libs/auth-utils';

if (isTokenValid(userToken)) {
// Continue login
}

Everything is in the same repo. You don’t need to publish or install anything—just import and go.

What Is a Polyrepo?

A Polyrepo (poly-repository) architecture involves maintaining separate repositories for each project or component. Each service, library, or application is versioned and maintained independently.

Example Polyrepo Layout:

  • frontend-react/ ➜ Separate GitHub repo

  • backend-node/ ➜ Separate GitHub repo

  • auth-utils/ ➜ Separate GitHub repo

Each repository would have its own CI/CD pipeline, dependencies, and release cycle.

Sample Code Snippet

To use a shared utility in a Polyrepo setup, you typically publish it as a package:

auth-utils repo:

ts
export function isTokenValid(token: string): boolean {
return token.startsWith("jwt-");
}

Then publish it:

bash
npm publish --access public

frontend-react repo:

bash
npm install @company/auth-utils
tsx
import { isTokenValid } from '@company/auth-utils';

You now have an external dependency that must be maintained and versioned.

Pros and Cons: Monorepo vs. Polyrepo

Feature Monorepo Polyrepo
Code Sharing Easy with relative imports Requires package publishing and version control
Atomic Changes Possible across multiple projects Difficult—requires coordination across repos
CI/CD Unified pipelines, faster overall builds Granular control, but slower due to setup overhead
Access Control Harder to restrict access by team/project Each team controls their own repo
Tooling Complexity Requires tools like Nx, Lerna, Bazel Native Git workflows suffice
Versioning Unified (can be mono-versioned or independent) Independent semantic versioning per repo
Scalability Challenging beyond a certain size without tooling Easily scalable with distributed team ownership

Monorepos aren’t manageable without good tooling. Here are some key options:

Nx (for JS/TS)

Nx helps you scale with dependency graphs, affected builds, and caching.

bash
npx create-nx-workspace@latest

Nx will create structured folders for apps and libraries with built-in CI support.

Bazel (for multiple languages)

Developed by Google, Bazel supports large-scale builds with fine-grained caching and parallel execution.

bash
bazel build //apps/backend:all

Lerna

Lerna manages versioning and publishing for JS monorepos. It supports independent or locked versioning.

bash
npx lerna init

Tools That Help With Polyrepos

Polyrepo setups benefit from CI/CD pipelines and package management tools:

GitHub Actions (CI per repo)

Each repository can define its own .github/workflows/ci.yml file:

yaml
name: Node.js CI
on: [push]
jobs:
build:
runs-on: ubuntu-latest
steps:
- uses: actions/checkout@v3
- run: npm ci && npm run build

Git Submodules (not often recommended)

Sometimes, teams try to mimic monorepo-like inclusion via Git submodules, but they add complexity.

bash
git submodule add https://github.com/company/auth-utils.git libs/auth-utils

Real-World Use Cases

Monorepo Use Cases:

  • Google, Facebook, Uber: These companies use massive monorepos.

  • Ideal when:

    • Teams share a lot of code.

    • You need atomic commits across services.

    • You want consistent tooling, linting, testing, and CI/CD.

Polyrepo Use Cases:

  • Most open-source libraries use polyrepos.

  • Ideal when:

    • Teams are fully independent.

    • You have strict access or security boundaries.

    • Release cycles differ across components.

Versioning and Dependency Management

In a Monorepo:

You may use:

  • Single Versioning: All packages use the same version.

  • Independent Versioning: Tools like Lerna allow each to evolve independently.

Changes to libs/ui-components can automatically trigger downstream builds due to dependency graphs.

In a Polyrepo:

You must manually:

  • Bump versions

  • Publish packages

  • Handle breaking changes

  • Update dependencies across repos

This gives fine-grained control but increases coordination overhead.

CI/CD in Practice

Monorepo CI/CD with Nx:

bash
nx affected:build --base=main

Only the projects that were affected by the recent commit are rebuilt.

Polyrepo CI/CD:

Each repo must define its own pipeline. Coordination between pipelines (e.g., auth-utils and frontend) can be challenging. Tools like GitHub Workflows Dispatch or Argo Workflows can help orchestrate.

Access and Security

  • Monorepo: Hard to restrict access unless you’re using advanced Git permissions or tools like Perforce or VCS wrappers.

  • Polyrepo: Clean separation. Teams can have full control over who accesses what.

When to Use Which?

Scenario Recommended Strategy
Microservices with minimal coupling Polyrepo
Shared libraries, fullstack projects Monorepo
Large enterprise with strict governance Polyrepo
Rapid prototyping or internal tools Monorepo
Distributed global teams Polyrepo
Centralized engineering workflows Monorepo

There’s no one-size-fits-all answer. The right repository strategy depends on:

  • Your team structure

  • The size and scope of your projects

  • Your need for code sharing

  • Your release cadence

  • Your tooling maturity

Conclusion

The debate between Monorepo and Polyrepo is not just about file structure—it’s about how teams collaborate, ship code, and scale development practices.

Monorepos bring simplicity and cohesion. They shine when your teams are tightly knit, when code reuse is high, and when coordinated releases are common. You gain the ability to make sweeping changes across systems atomically, and to unify your tooling and CI/CD pipelines. With modern tools like Nx, Bazel, or Turborepo, the traditional scaling issues of monorepos are now more manageable than ever.

Polyrepos, on the other hand, offer a high degree of autonomy. They thrive in organizations that value independent ownership, security isolation, and flexible release cycles. They allow each team to manage its own lifecycle and dependencies without worrying about the rest of the ecosystem—an approach particularly well-suited to distributed enterprises or microservice-heavy infrastructures.

Yet, each strategy has its costs. Monorepos can become unwieldy if not structured carefully, requiring significant tooling investment. Polyrepos can suffer from dependency hell, redundant CI pipelines, and complex cross-team coordination.

In practice, many mature engineering organizations even adopt hybrid strategies—using monorepos for tightly coupled components and polyrepos for externally consumed libraries or services with strict boundaries.

Ultimately, the choice should not be made in isolation but as a reflection of your engineering culture, product strategy, team topology, and growth expectations. Repositories are more than storage—they’re living systems. So choose a strategy that evolves with you, not against you.