Monorepo: Turborepo vs Nx vs Bun workspaces

TL;DR

• Bun workspaces: Recommended untuk monorepo kecil 2-5 package
• Turborepo: Recommended untuk monorepo medium 5-20 package, build caching critical
• Nx: Recommended untuk monorepo besar 20+ package, full opinionated structure

Konteks

Project monorepo saya:

• SaaS klinik dental: Bun workspaces (3 package: api, web, shared)
• SaaS billing fotograf: Turborepo (5 package: api, web-admin, web-customer, shared-types, mobile)
• Eksperimen Nx: 1 try, bailed setelah 3 hari karena over-engineered

Bun workspaces

Setup

// package.json (root)
{
  "name": "my-monorepo",
  "workspaces": ["packages/*", "apps/*"]
}

my-monorepo/
├── apps/
│   ├── api/
│   │   └── package.json
│   └── web/
│       └── package.json
├── packages/
│   └── shared/
│       └── package.json
└── package.json

Reference shared package di app:

// apps/api/package.json
{
  "dependencies": {
    "@my/shared": "workspace:*"
  }
}

Pro

• Zero config: Bun handle linking otomatis
• Native: tidak butuh extra tool
• Fast: parallel install + run
• Simple mental model

Con

• No caching: setiap build full
• No task orchestration: run script manual per package
• No project graph: tidak ada visualization dependency

Workflow

# Install semua
bun install

# Run di specific package
bun --cwd apps/api run dev
bun --cwd apps/web run dev

# Or per package script
bun --filter "@my/api" run dev

Cocok untuk 2-5 package, simple shared utility.

Turborepo

Setup

bunx create-turbo@latest

Config:

// turbo.json
{
  "$schema": "https://turbo.build/schema.json",
  "tasks": {
    "build": {
      "dependsOn": ["^build"],
      "outputs": [".next/**", "dist/**"]
    },
    "dev": {
      "cache": false,
      "persistent": true
    },
    "test": {
      "dependsOn": ["build"]
    }
  }
}

Pro

• Build caching: re-build hanya yang berubah (60-90% time saving di typical workflow)
• Remote cache: share cache between team members + CI (via Vercel Remote Cache atau self-host)
• Task orchestration: turbo run build cek dependency, run parallel
• Less opinionated than Nx: minimal additions to existing project

Con

• Cache management complexity: occasional stale cache issue
• Vendor lock-in to Vercel (sebagian): remote cache via Vercel
• Less powerful than Nx: tidak ada code generation, generator, plugin yang sama deep

Pengalaman

Untuk SaaS billing fotograf (5 package):

• Without Turborepo: bun run build semua = 4-6 menit
• Dengan Turborepo (full cache hit): turbo run build = 8-12 detik
• Dengan Turborepo (partial change): 1-3 menit

Game changer untuk team CI workflow.

Nx

Setup

bunx create-nx-workspace@latest

Config kompleks (nx.json, project.json per package, tsconfig.base.json, dll).

Pro

• Full opinionated: scaffolding, generator, plugin
• Powerful project graph: visualize dependency, affected analysis
• Strong caching: comparable to Turborepo + lebih sophisticated
• Plugin ecosystem: Angular, React, Next.js, Astro, NestJS dengan opinionated config
• Affected commands: nx affected:build cek what changed, build only impacted

Con

• Steep learning curve: 1-2 minggu untuk fluent
• Over-engineered untuk small project: 2-5 package overkill
• Lock-in to Nx convention: refactor existing project butuh major rework
• Heavy CLI: many command, options

Bila pakai

Worth Nx kalau:

• 15+ package
• Multiple framework (e.g., Next.js + Nest + React Native + Storybook)
• Enterprise team dengan dedicated tooling engineer
• Butuh strict project boundary + code generation

Tidak worth kalau Anda solo dev atau small team — overhead complexity > benefit.

Benchmark

Same task: build 5 package monorepo, full rebuild.

Tool	Cold	Warm (cache)
Bun workspaces	285s	285s (no cache)
Turborepo	290s (first)	12s (cache hit)
Nx	320s (first)	15s (cache hit)

Cold first build similar. Subsequent build dengan cache: Turborepo + Nx 20-25x faster.

Decision matrix

Project shape	Recommended
2-5 package, simple monorepo	Bun workspaces
5-20 package, multiple apps	Turborepo
20+ package, multi-framework	Nx
Team kecil (1-3 dev), no time for tool overhead	Bun workspaces atau Turborepo
Enterprise dengan dedicated tooling team	Nx
Migration from polyrepo	Turborepo (gentler)

Konteks Indonesia

Untuk SMB Indonesia 2026:

• Bun workspaces default untuk most monorepo
• Turborepo worth kalau Anda hit build time pain (CI time > 5 menit consistent)
• Nx hampir tidak relevan untuk SMB

Yang surprising

Saya thought monorepo butuh tool sophisticated. Reality untuk SMB: Bun workspaces sudah cukup untuk 80% use case.

Turborepo shine saat Anda hit CI time pain. Sebelum itu: jangan add complexity.

Nx saya tested 3 hari, lalu bailed. Setup time tidak justify benefit untuk klien saya (3-5 package).

Common pitfall

Shared package versioning: workspace dependency dengan version mismatch silent issue. Pakai workspace:* untuk always link latest local.

Build order: shared package harus build sebelum app. Turborepo/Nx handle via dependsOn. Bun workspaces manual.

CI cache: setup Turborepo remote cache or Nx cloud cache for team. Without ini, cache hanya local — CI miss out.

Circular dependency: monorepo can hide circular import. Run madge --circular regularly.

Verdict

Conditional:

• Default SMB Indonesia: Bun workspaces (simplest, fastest setup)
• Upgrade ke Turborepo saat build time become CI bottleneck
• Nx hanya untuk enterprise scale

Hindari:

• Premature adoption Nx untuk 3-5 package project (over-engineered)
• Migrate dari Bun workspaces tanpa concrete pain point
• Skip caching saat monorepo grow > 10 package