Choosing the right monorepo tool can feel overwhelming when you’re staring at three popular options and your project deadline is looming. This comparison will help you quickly understand which tool—Turborepo, Nx, or Lerna—best fits your specific needs in 2025.
Problem Summary
You need to manage multiple JavaScript/TypeScript packages in a single repository, but you’re stuck deciding between Turborepo, Nx, and Lerna. Making the wrong choice now could mean painful migrations later, slower build times, and frustrated developers on your team.
Step-by-Step Fixes
Step 1: Assess Your Current Project Size
Start by counting your packages and team members. Open your terminal and run `ls -la packages/` or check your existing workspace structure. If you have fewer than 10 packages and a small team (under 5 developers), Turborepo offers the fastest setup. For larger enterprises with 50+ packages, Nx provides better long-term scalability.
Step 2: Check Your Build Performance Requirements
Run a test build with your current setup and time it. If builds take over 5 minutes, you need strong caching. Create a simple benchmark by running your build command three times and averaging the results. Turborepo and Nx both offer remote caching, but Nx includes it free while Turborepo requires Vercel’s paid service for remote caching.
Step 3: Evaluate Your Tech Stack Diversity
List all frameworks and languages in your monorepo. Open a text editor and write down every technology you use: React, Vue, Angular, Node.js backends, Python scripts, etc. Nx excels with diverse stacks and offers generators for multiple frameworks. Turborepo works best with JavaScript/TypeScript only. Lerna handles basic JavaScript but lacks advanced features for other languages.
Step 4: Test the Learning Curve
Set a timer for 30 minutes and try setting up a basic example with each tool. For Turborepo, run `npx create-turbo@latest`. For Nx, use `npx create-nx-workspace@latest`. For Lerna, try `npx lerna init`. Document which one feels most intuitive to your team. This hands-on test often reveals the best fit quickly.
Step 5: Calculate Long-term Costs
Open a spreadsheet and list potential costs. Include CI/CD minutes, remote caching services, and team training time. Nx Cloud starts free for small teams. Turborepo’s remote caching through Vercel starts at $20/month. Lerna has no built-in remote caching, so factor in custom solutions if needed.
Step 6: Run a Proof of Concept
Pick your top choice and migrate one small package as a test. Set aside 2-4 hours for this experiment. Create a new branch, move one package to the monorepo structure, and test common workflows: building, testing, and publishing. This real-world test beats any theoretical comparison.
Likely Causes
Cause #1: Performance Bottlenecks with Current Setup
Your builds take forever because you’re rebuilding unchanged code repeatedly. Check this by running your build twice without changes—if the second build takes as long as the first, you lack proper caching.
Both Turborepo and Nx solve this with intelligent caching. Turborepo caches at the task level with minimal configuration. Add this to your `turbo.json`:
“`json
{
“pipeline”: {
“build”: {
“cache”: true,
“outputs”: [“dist/“, “.next/“]
}
}
}
“`
Nx provides more granular caching control but requires more setup. The payoff comes with massive projects where fine-tuning saves hours.
Cause #2: Team Scaling Issues
You started with Lerna when you had 3 packages, but now you have 30 and builds are chaos. Multiple developers step on each other’s work, and nobody knows which packages changed.
This happens because Lerna (especially versions before 6.0) lacks advanced dependency graph analysis. Migrate to Nx for the best visualization tools—run `nx graph` to see your entire dependency tree. Turborepo offers `turbo run build –graph` for similar insights but with less detail.
Cause #3: Inconsistent Developer Experience
Different team members use different commands, some packages have unique setups, and onboarding takes weeks. Check for this by asking three developers to explain your build process—if you get three different answers, you have a consistency problem.
Nx shines here with consistent generators. Run `nx g @nrwl/react:app my-app` to create standardized applications. Every app follows the same patterns. Turborepo keeps things simpler but offers less structure. Lerna provides minimal opinions, which can lead to chaos without strong team conventions.
When to Call an Expert Help
Consider bringing in a monorepo specialist when your migration affects more than 20 packages or 10 developers. If you’re seeing build times over 30 minutes even with caching, or if you need to integrate non-JavaScript services, expert guidance saves months of trial and error.
Look for consultants with specific experience in your chosen tool. Check their GitHub for monorepo contributions. Budget $5,000-15,000 for a proper migration strategy and initial setup. This investment pays off quickly through reduced build times and developer frustration.
Red flags that you need immediate help: builds randomly failing in CI but working locally, cache invalidation happening too often, or developers avoiding the monorepo and creating separate repositories. These symptoms indicate architectural issues beyond tool choice.
Copy-Paste Prompt for AI Help
Use this prompt when you need specific guidance:
“I have a monorepo with [X] packages using [current tool/no tool]. My team has [Y] developers. Our main technologies are [list technologies]. Build times currently take [time]. We need [specific requirements like remote caching, CI/CD integration, etc.]. Should we use Turborepo, Nx, or Lerna? Please consider our specific constraints and provide a migration strategy with concrete first steps.”
Replace the bracketed sections with your actual details for personalized recommendations that consider your unique situation.