TL;DR

• Composable Commerce promises agility but often fails due to complex process logic and developer dependency.
• Both Monolith and Composable architectures share a core issue: business processes are buried deep in the code.
• Orchestration enhances Composable with a central no-code layer for process flexibility.
• For the first time, business teams can independently design and roll out processes.
• This article compares both approaches across five key criteria: Agility, TCO, Time-to-Market, Governance, and Business Enablement.

The shop is up and running. The APIs are in place. The tech stack is state-of-the-art at least in theory.

Yet even the smallest process change takes weeks. A new pricing logic? It needs to be scoped, planned, built, tested, and deployed with resources no one currently has.

Sound familiar?

Then you’re likely among the many companies that had high hopes for Composable Commerce only to be met by reality: rising complexity, slow execution, and constant reliance on development teams.

Wasn’t that exactly what Composable was supposed to solve?

Composable Commerce has certainly brought changes: less vendor lock-in, more technological freedom, and cleaner APIs. But true business agility? That often gets left behind. Even in a modular stack, business processes remain buried deep in code and that’s the real issue.

In this article, we explain why Composable Commerce alone isn’t enough and how Orchestration, as a new process layer, tackles exactly where many Composable strategies stall.

You’ll learn how the two approaches differ, what Orchestration really means and the five key differences you need to understand if you want to future-proof your commerce platform.

Composable Commerce – A Leap Forward with Limits

It was a promise that excited many digital leaders: more flexibility, less dependency, finally breaking free from monolithic systems. Composable Commerce promised to make everything better. And at first glance, it did:

• Technological freedom: Businesses can choose best-of-breed solutions for search, checkout, CMS, or PIM.
• Modularity: Features can be swapped or expanded without compromising the entire system.
• API-first principles: Interfaces ensure clear ownership and integrations.

But in practice, this new freedom comes at a price.

What sounds like agility in theory often becomes the opposite in reality. Every new tool must be integrated, every process logic modeled individually, and every change orchestrated across multiple services.

What emerges isn’t a system but an ecosystem. And that’s harder to manage than expected.

• Integration effort: Using many tools means many interfaces and often even more custom code.
• Lack of Business Enablement: Business units still rely on developers to change processes.
• Agility illusion: Modularity alone doesn’t bring speed if every process change is an IT project.

The truth is: Composable solves many past problems but also creates new ones that are just as critical.

Why Monolith and Composable Share the Same Core Flaw

At first glance, Monolithic and Composable architectures couldn’t be more different. One is sluggish, rigid, and built over years. The other is modular, flexible, and future-oriented.

But in one key aspect, they’re surprisingly similar and share the same blind spot:

The business logic is buried in the code.

Whether monolithic or modular the way orders are validated, returns approved, or prices calculated is hardcoded into the system. Changing that almost always means:

• Writing requirements
• Involving developers
• Managing tickets
• Running test cycles
• And: waiting

The business is left out.

Business teams have ideas but no way to act on them quickly. They depend on developers even for seemingly simple tasks.

An example?

A custom pricing tier for a major client. Sounds minor but means: adjust the code, test it, deploy it. A sales suggestion quickly becomes a week-long IT task.

So the difference from the past isn’t whether code needs to be written but where.

Instead of being buried in a monolith, it now lives in a “backend for frontend,” often just as hard to maintain as before.

The result is the same: processes stay hardcoded and the business gets left behind.

What Orchestration Does Differently

If Composable is the attempt to manage complexity, Orchestration addresses what’s often overlooked: the processes.

The main challenge isn’t the tools themselves but how they work together. Like how an approval process during checkout is orchestrated across multiple systems or how a sales team creates personalized offers without roadblocks.

This is exactly where Orchestration comes in

An Orchestration Layer isn’t just another software component it’s a new architectural layer placed across existing systems. The key: it’s process-centric and completely no-code.

Instead of coding logic into microservices or manually wiring APIs, processes can be modeled visually via drag & drop, configuration, and a central rule engine.

What does this look like in practice?

• A multi-step order approval process?
  → No IT ticket needed, just a configurable workflow in the interface.
  
  
• A new return policy for specific customer segments?
  → No developer time required, just a few clicks in the no-code tool.
  
  
• An onboarding flow with automatic coupon code?
  → Updated in minutes, not planned over months.

The effect: processes become visible, manageable, and designable. No longer hidden in silos but orchestrated centrally.

This brings agility back where it’s needed most: to the business. Teams can respond quickly, test ideas, implement optimizations without blocking developers or making compromises.

And that’s the key difference from the Composable mindset:

Not more APIs. But more control over processes.

The 5 Key Differences at a Glance

How exactly do Composable Commerce and Orchestration differ? Here are five areas where the contrast makes the biggest impact for your business, your processes, and your time-to-market:

1. Business Empowerment vs. Developer Dependency

2. Time-to-Market for Process Changes

3. Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)

4. Governance & Transparency

5. Scalability & Future-Proofing

If You Think Composable, You Should Also Think Orchestration

Composable Commerce has made an important contribution: moving away from monolithic traps toward modular, open architectures. But many companies are realizing: technical modularity alone isn’t enough.

True agility doesn’t happen at the code level it happens in the process. And that’s exactly where Orchestration steps in.

With a central no-code process layer, a technical stack becomes a truly agile commerce system. Processes can be designed, adapted, and optimized not in ticketing systems, but in the interface.

Business teams become empowered, developers are relieved, and innovation accelerates.