Loading page
About this tool
Answer eight questions about code sharing, tooling, releases and access control to get a scored monorepo-vs-polyrepo recommendation.
This tool scores your team on the eight factors that actually decide between a monorepo and a polyrepo — code sharing, frequency of cross-project changes, build-tooling investment, release coupling, access control, projected scale, dependency policy and team autonomy. Each answer awards points to one side and the result is two comparable fit percentages plus a recommendation, with a 15-point margin treated as a toss-up. Engineering leads get a defensible, written-down rationale instead of a whiteboard argument.
Open Monorepo vs Polyrepo Decision Tool on AltFTool — it loads instantly in your browser.
Paste your code or data sample into the workspace.
Pick the format, conversion, or analysis you need.
Copy the polished result straight back into your project.
Every answer's monorepo and polyrepo points are shown in a breakdown table — no black-box verdict.
A gap under 15 percentage points is reported as borderline with a lean, because migrations are rarely worth a coin-flip advantage.
Access control, CI investment and release coupling are weighted alongside the usual code-sharing argument.
When projects share significant code, one change regularly needs to land atomically across several projects, and you can invest in affected-only CI tooling like Nx, Turborepo or Bazel. Those three conditions are why Google and Meta run monorepos — without them, a monorepo is mostly a very large folder with slow CI.
Access control is coarse (most Git hosts gate at repository level, so everyone typically sees everything), CI must be engineered to build only affected projects or pipelines become unbearably slow, and Git operations degrade at very large scale without extra tooling like sparse checkout. Teams that need contractor isolation or fully independent release trains often land on polyrepo for exactly these reasons.
No — a monorepo is a storage and integration strategy, not a release strategy; tools like Changesets, Lerna and Nx release ship independently versioned packages from one repo every day. However, if your cadences are fully independent and products never change together, one of the monorepo's biggest benefits (atomic cross-project commits) goes unused, which this tool scores accordingly.
Only when the pain is concrete and recurring: coordinated changes across repos every week, version drift between shared libraries, or duplicated CI maintenance. A borderline score here usually means the migration cost — history rewriting, CI redesign, retraining — exceeds the benefit, and improving tooling inside your current structure is the better first move.