Top 5 Problems Angular Native Federation Doesn't Solve (and Practical Solutions)

A clear vision, a motivated team, ambitious goals. And yet, how many go off track along the way?

The Native Federation architecture profoundly changes the way Angular applications are designed and deployed. By enabling a truly modular and distributed approach, it offers valuable agility for development teams.

But this freedom comes at a price. Behind the promises of flexibility and scalability, several technical obstacles quickly emerge: scattered configuration, asset duplication, inconsistencies in internationalization, complex version management, and increased debugging difficulty.

If these challenges are not anticipated, they can slow down deliveries, degrade performance, and compromise the maintainability of the entire system.

In this article, we explore the 5 main problems (ranked by criticality) that Native Federation does not solve, as well as practical solutions to work around them without sacrificing the power of this architecture.

Level 1 – Critical (to address as a priority)

Versioning management: mastering dependencies and compatibility

In a federated architecture, each module is versioned and deployed independently. However, this autonomy faces major technical constraints, especially with Angular:

• Incompatibilities between Angular versions: Angular requires a single, consistent version for the entire application. It is impossible to have federated modules using different versions of Angular (e.g., one module in v20 and another in v19). This constraint limits the flexibility promised by federation and forces synchronized migrations, which are time-consuming and resource-intensive.
• Dependency conflicts: Even though federated modules can theoretically manage their own dependencies, Angular and its associated libraries (RxJS, @angular/material, etc.) must be aligned on a single version. A module using a different version of a shared library (e.g., RxJS) can break integration with other modules.
• Difficulty ensuring backward compatibility: API contracts between modules must be strictly documented and followed. A minor change in a module (e.g., service signature change) can have a cascading impact on the entire application, without early detection.
• Complex governance: Unlike a monolith, where only one version of each dependency is used, federation requires increased coordination between teams to avoid divergences. This results in high maintenance costs and slower delivery cycles.

Consequences

• Increased risk of regressions in production, especially during major Angular updates.
• Increased complexity for teams, who must synchronize their migrations and thoroughly test compatibilities.
• Loss of flexibility, one of the main advantages of federation, due to Angular's constraints.

Possible solutions

• Adopt a progressive migration strategy: Plan Angular updates centrally and synchronously between modules to avoid incompatibilities.
• Use Web Components to bypass Angular's limitations:
  • Version independence: Each Web Component can use its own version of Angular (or another framework), without conflict with the rest of the application.
  • Enhanced encapsulation: Styles and behaviors are isolated, reducing the risk of interference between modules.
  • Smooth integration: Web Components can be loaded dynamically and integrated into any application, including those using different Angular versions.
• Automate compatibility tests:Integrate tools like Nx or Lerna to validate dependencies and API contracts between modules, and detect incompatibilities early in development.
• Rigorously document API contracts:Establish clear specifications (e.g., OpenAPI, JSON Schema) for shared services and components, and enforce systematic code reviews before any change.

Configuration management: avoiding parameter fragmentation

In a federated architecture, each module can have its own configuration variables (API endpoints, authentication keys, feature flipping, etc.). This dispersion introduces several risks:

• Environment inconsistency: Modules may use different configurations for the same environment (dev, staging, prod), making it difficult to guarantee uniform behavior.
• Compromised security: The multiplication of configuration files increases the risk of sensitive data leaks (e.g., API keys exposed in a poorly secured module).
• Deployment complexity: CI/CD pipelines must manage configurations specific to each module, complicating DevOps processes.

Consequences

• Increased risk of production failures due to incompatible configurations.
• Difficulty applying global changes (e.g., API endpoint migration).
• Operational overhead to maintain and audit configurations.

Possible solutions

• Centralize configuration via a dedicated service.
• Automate configuration validation in CI/CD pipelines.
• Standardize configuration formats to facilitate maintenance.

Level 2 – Important (to stabilize quickly)

Debugging management: overcoming distributed complexity

Native Federation introduces an additional abstraction layer, which complicates:

• Error tracing: An error in a federated module can be difficult to trace back to its source, especially if logs are scattered.
• Performance monitoring: Traditional tools (APM) are not always suited to a distributed architecture.
• Impact analysis: Understanding how a change in one module affects the entire application becomes complex.

Consequences

• Increased mean time to resolution (MTTR).
• Difficulty identifying bottlenecks in a distributed architecture.
• Lack of visibility into interactions between modules.

Possible solutions

• Invest in advanced observability tools.
• Standardize logs and metrics to facilitate debugging.
• Train teams in best debugging practices in a federated environment.

Level 3 – Improvements (progressive optimization)

Asset management: optimizing images and static resources

Assets (images, icons, fonts) are often externalized or duplicated in federated modules. This poses several problems:

• Unnecessary duplication: Several modules may embed the same assets, increasing bundle size and degrading performance.
• Caching issues: Assets loaded dynamically from different modules may not benefit from optimal caching, especially if their URLs are not stable.
• Difficulty applying global optimizations (e.g., compression, WebP conversion) without centralized governance.

Consequences

• Performance degradation (load times, Lighthouse score).
• Increased CDN costs if assets are not optimized.
• User experience impacted by longer response times.

Possible solutions

• Create a centralized repository for shared assets.
• Use advanced caching strategies.
• Automate asset optimization with specialized tools.

Internationalization management: ensuring linguistic consistency

Internationalization is a critical issue for multi-region applications. With Native Federation:

• Scattered translation files: Each module can manage its own i18n resources, making terminological consistency and centralized maintenance difficult.
• Asynchronous loading of translations: Federated modules may display content before their translations are available, creating inconsistencies.
• Difficulty applying global updates (e.g., rebranding, terminology corrections).

Consequences

• Degraded user experience if translations are incomplete or inconsistent.
• Increased complexity for teams who must coordinate i18n updates.
• Risk of non-compliance with local requirements (e.g., language regulations).

Possible solutions

• Centralize translation management via a dedicated module or external service.
• Implement a fallback system to avoid untranslated content.
• Automate i18n resource synchronization between modules.

Conclusion: a powerful architecture, provided it is well mastered

Native Federation is a major step forward for modular Angular architectures. It allows teams to develop and deploy independently, while building more scalable applications.

Roadmap for successful adoption of Native Federation:

Standardize the essentials

• Centralize configuration, assets, and translations.
• Define clear conventions (naming, versioning, API contracts).

Automate as much as possible

• Set up CI/CD pipelines that validate configurations and compatibilities.
• Automate asset optimization and i18n synchronization.

Strengthen observability

• Standardize logs and metrics.
• Invest in tracing and monitoring tools suited to distributed architectures.

In other words: start small, standardize quickly, and invest early in organizational and technical governance. Teams that adopt this discipline will turn Native Federation into a lever for innovation and agility, instead of seeing it as a source of complexity.

To go further: Resources on Native Federation with Angular

Official documentation and technical guides

• Angular Native Federation: The official documentation from the team behind Native Federation for Angular, including articles covering many topics.
• Solution with Web Components to manage multiple Angular versions between the Shell and remotes.
• Official GitHub of the Native Federation library.