In the first article in this series, we compared two different software architecture styles for content management systems (CMS): the monolith and the MACH architecture. Here is a brief recap: monoliths are still the most widespread solution. However, monoliths quickly reach their limits when it comes to individuality and customizing as well as the maintainability of the systems. The MACH architecture (Microservices, API First, Cloud Native, Headless) offers a highly flexible and high-performance alternative. In this text, we therefore want to look at the areas in which MACH is already being used, where its potential and limitations lie and what you need to know about MACH.
As we noted in the first part of this series of articles, good CMSs are scalable, modular and maintainable, offering cost control and low complexity in day-to-day operations. How does the MACH architecture perform in these criteria?
Scalability: The C in MACH stands for "Cloud Native". Cloud services are by definition scalable on demand, so MACH gets full marks here.
Modularity/maintainability: Microservices ("M" in MACH) are the epitome of modularity. How easy the solution is to operate naturally depends on the specific use case. Nevertheless, it can generally be said that MACH performs significantly better here than the inflexible monolith.
Control over costs: In the cloud, costs are incurred on an as-needed basis. As a rule, no large sums need to be advanced. Thanks to the headless component in MACH, dependency on one provider can be avoided, as the front end and back end are separated by definition. This means that individual components can be replaced in a targeted manner, which increases cost control.
Low complexity: MACH is not the "one-fits-all" solution that a monolith offers. In order to use a CMS with MACH architecture, you have to deal with the technical solutions for the front end, back end and the CMS individually and be able to operate them in the overall system.
To summarize: With MACH, you have more control over the individual components of the business application and can scale and make changes in a targeted manner. However, we have to deal with the complexity of the MACH architecture. For whom is it worthwhile? Are there already many other companies using MACH?
A survey by the MACH Alliance [1] revealed that 91 percent of decision-makers today consider MACH technologies to be an important factor for their future success. This development is largely in line with our experience. Across different industries, the use of MACH systems offers great gains in flexibility and efficiency.
There is also still a lot of potential here in terms of future development. Experts expect that the use of cloud-based solutions and artificial intelligence will also continue to increase in the CMS sector. [2] As far as the use and implementation of artificial intelligence is concerned, technologies that follow the MACH approach offer significantly more opportunities than monolithic systems, which are simply not as easy to expand in terms of their functionality. And as far as the move towards the cloud is concerned, the C in MACH speaks for itself.
While we are still in the early stages of MACH in Germany, the MACH architecture has already become state of the art in France and the USA, for example. In our opinion, this shift will soon arrive in Germany too, because more and more companies are seeing and understanding the overwhelming advantages. MACH has long outgrown the hype phase and has become a first-class alternative to monolithic architecture. In fact, we consider MACH to be the better choice in most cases and build our customers' systems on a MACH basis. Of course, there are specific circumstances to consider when making any decision. In the next part of this article series, we will show you how to decide on a particular architecture.
[1] https://machalliance.org/insights-hub/mach-global-research-2024
[2] https://de.statista.com/outlook/tmo/software/unternehmenssoftware/content-management-software/weltweit