Let’s get to it:
In today’s world, most companies have shifted from one big application to many smaller microservices.
Each microservice does its own job — one might handle payments, another handles products, another users, and so on.
Here’s the problem:
When you use GraphQL with microservices, you often end up with a single giant GraphQL “gateway” that has to know about all the microservices.
As your company grows, so does that GraphQL gateway — until it becomes a bottleneck. Every change in one service can ripple through the entire system, making updates risky and slow.
Enter GraphQL Federation 2.0
Federation is like a city with multiple neighborhoods — each microservice can have its own mini GraphQL schema and work independently, but still appear to clients as one unified GraphQL API.
In Federation 2.0:
- Each service defines the part of the graph it owns.
- The gateway stitches all the parts together dynamically.
- You can add/remove services without disrupting the whole API.
Example (non-technical analogy):
Imagine a travel booking site:
- Flights Service knows about flights.
- Hotels Service knows about hotels.
- Reviews Service knows about reviews.
In a non-federated GraphQL setup, you’d have to put all flight, hotel, and review data into one schema inside the gateway — a pain to maintain.
With Federation, each service manages its own schema, and the gateway combines them on-the-fly. This keeps things modular, faster to develop, and easier to scale.
How it helps:
Comparing Federation to REST and gRPC
| Feature | GraphQL Federation 2.0 | REST | gRPC |
|---|---|---|---|
| Single endpoint for all data | Yes (via unified graph) | Each service has its own URL | Each service has its own RPC method |
| Strong typing | Yes | No built-in typing | Yes (Protocol Buffers) |
| Over-fetching / Under-fetching issues | No (fetch exactly what you need) | Common problem | Rare |
| Performance in microservices | Optimized via subgraphs | Many network calls | Fast binary transport |
| Ease of onboarding | High for devs, clear schema | Variable, depends on docs | Steeper learning curve |
| Cross-service schema evolution | Federated ownership makes it safer | Needs coordinated updates | Needs proto changes |
Pros of GraphQL Federation 2.0:
- Decentralized ownership — teams work independently.
- Easy scaling — add/remove microservices without major rewrites.
- A single source of truth for clients.
- Better developer experience with strong typing and autocomplete.
Cons:
- Steeper initial setup.
- Requires consistent schema design discipline across teams.
- Gateway adds an extra layer — must be optimized for performance.
In essence:
Barebones Apollo Gateway + Node.js Example
// gateway.js
const { ApolloServer } = require('@apollo/server');
const { ApolloGateway } = require('@apollo/gateway');
const gateway = new ApolloGateway({
serviceList: [
{ name: 'products', url: 'http://localhost:4001/graphql' },
{ name: 'reviews', url: 'http://localhost:4002/graphql' },
],
});
const server = new ApolloServer({ gateway });
server.listen({ port: 4000 }).then(({ url }) => {
console.log(`🚀 Gateway ready at ${url}`);
});
// products.js
const { ApolloServer, gql } = require('apollo-server');
const typeDefs = gql`
type Product {
id: ID!
name: String
}
type Query {
products: [Product]
}
`;
const resolvers = {
Query: {
products: () => [{ id: '1', name: 'Laptop' }],
},
};
new ApolloServer({ typeDefs, resolvers })
.listen({ port: 4001 })
.then(({ url }) => console.log(`Products service at ${url}`));
Summary
- Problem: Microservices + GraphQL can create scaling bottlenecks in a single gateway.
- Solution: GraphQL Federation 2.0 decentralizes ownership of schemas.
- Benefit: Teams work independently, services scale better, clients still see one unified API.
- Comparison: Federation keeps the benefits of GraphQL but scales like REST/gRPC microservices.
- Code: Apollo Gateway + subservices = plug-and-play federation.
“APIs are like orchestras — Federation is the conductor that keeps all the microservices in tune.”

Leave a comment