Skip to main content

Evaluation of SOA-Based Web Services and Microservices Architecture Using Complexity Metrics


Distributed systems have evolved rapidly as the demand for independent design and deployment of software applications has increased. Web services and microservices are two styles of designing distributed applications based on the principles of Service-Oriented Architecture (SOA). After the evolution of microservices, software architects are in chaos, whether to adopt microservices over web services. To the best of our knowledge, there has been no empirical work done in the literature for comparing both web services and microservices architecture in terms of the coupling principle of SOA. In this paper, a service graph-based approach is proposed to analyze and evaluate the effectiveness of microservices architecture when compared with web services. Loose coupling is used as a perspective for evaluation, and we have chosen two case study applications to evaluate them in terms of coupling. From the results, it is observed that microservices has lesser coupling values than web services.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6


  1. Fowler, Lewis . Microservices a definition of this new architectural term. Website: 2014 Mar:22.


  1. Bhiri S, Gaaloul W, Rouached M, Hauswirth M. Semantic web services for satisfying SOA requirements. In: Chang, Elizabeth J, Sycara K, editors. Advances in web semantics I. Berlin: Springer; 2008, p. 374–95.

  2. Hutchison B, Schmidt MT, Wolfson D, Stockton M. SOA programming model for implementing web services, Part 4: an introduction to the IBM Enterprise Service Bus. Endicott: IBM Developerworks: IBM; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Rahman M, Gao J. A reusable automated acceptance testing architecture for microservices in behavior-driven development. In: 2015 IEEE Symposium on service-oriented system engineering 2015 Mar 30; p. 321–25. IEEE.

  4. Taibi D, Lenarduzzi V, Pahl C. Processes, motivations, and issues for migrating to microservices architectures: an empirical investigation. IEEE Cloud Comput. 2017;4(5):22–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Taibi D, Lenarduzzi V, Pahl C. Architectural patterns for microservices: a systematic mapping study. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on cloud computing and services science - Volume 1: CLOSER, p. 221–32. ISBN 978-989-758-295-0.

  6. Richards M. Microservices vs. service-oriented architecture.

  7. Leitão P, Colombo AW, Karnouskos S. Industrial automation based on cyber-physical systems technologies: prototype implementations and challenges. Comput Ind. 2016;1(81):11–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Srinivasan L, Treadwell J. An overview of service-oriented architecture, web services and grid computing. HP Softw Glob Bus Unit. 2005.

  9. Feng X, Shen J, Fan Y. REST: an alternative to RPC for Web services architecture. In: 2009 First International Conference on future information networks 2009 Oct 14; p. 7–10. IEEE.

  10. Cerny T, Donahoo MJ, Pechanec J. Disambiguation and comparison of soa, microservices and self-contained systems. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on research in adaptive and convergent systems 2017 Sep 20; p. 228–35. ACM.

  11. Bogner J, Fritzsch J, Wagner S, Zimmermann A. Limiting technical debt with maintainability assurance: an industry survey on used techniques and differences with service-and microservice-based systems. In: Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Technical Debt 2018 May 27; p. 125–133.

  12. Bogner J, Wagner S, Zimmermann A. Using architectural modifiability tactics to examine evolution qualities of service-and microservice-based systems. SICS Softw-Intensive Cyber-Phys Syst. 2019;34:141–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Raj V and Ravichandra S. Microservices: a perfect SOA based solution for Enterprise Applications compared to Web Services. In: 2018 3rd IEEE International Conference on recent trends in electronics, information & communication technology (RTEICT) 2018; p. 1531–536. IEEE.

  14. Balalaie A, Heydarnoori A, Jamshidi P. Migrating to cloud-native architectures using microservices: an experience report. In: European Conference on service-oriented and cloud computing. 15. Cham: Springer; 2015 Sep, p. 201–15.

  15. Levcovitz A, Terra R, Valente MT. Towards a technique for extracting microservices from monolithic enterprise systems. 2016. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.03175.

  16. Shanmugapriya P, Suresh RM. Software architecture evaluation methods-a survey. Int J Comput Appl. 2012;49(16).

  17. Bouwers EM. Metric-based evaluation of implemented software architectures.

  18. Qingqing Z, Xinke L. Complexity metrics for service-oriented systems. In: 2009 Second International Symposium on knowledge acquisition and modeling 2009 Nov 30; Vol. 3, p. 375–78. IEEE.

  19. Elhag AA, Mohamad R. Metrics for evaluating the quality of service-oriented design. In: 2014 8th. Malaysian Software Engineering Conference (MySEC) 2014 Sep 23; p. 154–59. IEEE.

  20. Vinoski S. Old measures for new services. In: George Pallis, editor. IEEE Internet Comput. University of Cyprus. 2005;9(6):72–4.

  21. Bhallamudi P, Tilley S, Sinha A. Migrating a web-based application to a service-based system-an experience report. In: 2009 11th IEEE International Symposium on web systems evolution 2009 Sep 25; p. 71-74. IEEE.

  22. Lindvall M, Tvedt RT, Costa P. An empirically-based process for software architecture evaluation. Empir Softw Eng. 2003;8(1):83–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jammes F, Smit H. Service-oriented paradigms in industrial automation. IEEE Trans Ind Inf. 2005;1(1):62–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Washizaki H, Yamamoto H, Fukazawa Y. A metrics suite for measuring reusability of software components. In: Proceedings. 5th International Workshop on enterprise networking and computing in healthcare industry (IEEE Cat. No. 03EX717) 2004 Sep 5; p. 211–23. IEEE.

  25. Sindhgatta R, Sengupta B, Ponnalagu K. Measuring the quality of service oriented design. In: Service-oriented computing. 23. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2009, p. 485–99.

  26. Pautasso C, Wilde E. Why is the web loosely coupled?: a multi-faceted metric for service design. In: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on World wide web. San Bernardino, CA 92405: International Academy Publishing; 2009 Apr 20; p. 911–20. ACM.

  27. Hasselbring W. Microservices for scalability: keynote talk abstract. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM/SPEC on International Conference on performance engineering 2016 Mar 12; p. 133–34. ACM.

  28. Yanchuk A, Ivanyukovich A, Marchese M. Towards a mathematical foundation for service-oriented applications design. J Softw. 2006;1(1):32–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Barnickel N, Fluegge M. Transferring the principle of loose coupling to the semantic level. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on intelligent semantic web-services and applications 2010 Jun 14; p. 1–6.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to Vinay Raj.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Raj, V., Sadam, R. Evaluation of SOA-Based Web Services and Microservices Architecture Using Complexity Metrics. SN COMPUT. SCI. 2, 374 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI:


  • Service-oriented architecture
  • Web services
  • Microservices
  • Service graph
  • Metrics
  • Loose coupling