Which Publication Model Should You Choose: One Public VM, a Reverse Proxy, or a Load Balancer

A single public VM, a reverse proxy, and a load balancer are not three “levels of sophistication,” but three different ways of publishing an application.

If the service is small, single-purpose, without complex routing and without any real need to distribute traffic, then one public VM may be entirely enough.

If the application already needs a separate ingress layer — for example, for TLS termination, routing, hiding the backend, or exposing several services through one entry point — then the logic starts pointing toward a reverse proxy.

And if there are already several backends and traffic needs not only to be accepted, but also distributed between them, checked through health probes, and kept working through the failure of individual nodes, then what you need is a load balancer.

Put simply, the rule of thumb looks like this:

The main mistake here is to choose not from the real shape of the application, but “for future growth” or simply “to make it look more serious.”

Sometimes one public VM is a perfectly normal starting point. Sometimes a reverse proxy already simplifies the design a lot, even while the backend is still only one instance. And sometimes, without a load balancer, the system simply cannot handle growth or the failure of an individual node properly.

That is why the better choice here is not the term itself, but the publication layer the application actually needs right now.

Where to Start When Choosing a Publication Model

The best way to choose an application publication model is not by “what sounds more serious,” but by looking at how many backends you have, how the traffic behaves, and whether you need a separate ingress layer at all.

In some cases, one public VM is genuinely enough. In others, a reverse proxy is already needed so that you can expose one external entry point, handle TLS, and manage routing. And if there are several backends and traffic needs not only to be accepted but also distributed between them, then the logic starts moving toward a load balancer.

The mistake usually begins when publication is chosen by impression.

For example, a team keeps one public VM for too long even though the application has already grown and is clearly asking for a separate ingress layer. Or the opposite happens: a load balancer is introduced immediately even though there is still only one backend and that level of complexity brings no real benefit yet.

In practice, it is more useful to look at a few simple questions:

• Do you have one backend or several?
• Do you need a separate external layer in front of the application?
• Is TLS termination and routing required?
• Do you need to hide the backend from direct external access?
• Does the design need to handle traffic growth and the failure of individual nodes?

That is what really determines which publication model will work for you.

So the order of thinking is actually quite simple: first understand how the application receives traffic and what is really expected from the external layer, and only then choose between one public VM, a reverse proxy, and a load balancer.

After that, it becomes much easier to look at each option separately — not as “three terms in general,” but as answers to a specific level of application complexity and maturity.

One Public VM: When the Simple Model Is Still Appropriate

A single public VM is the most direct and easiest-to-understand way to publish an application.

You have one server with an external IP, the application or web server runs on it, and all incoming traffic goes directly there. For small projects, this can be a perfectly workable design: a minimum of layers, a minimum of moving parts, and almost no complexity at the start.

That is exactly why this option is often completely reasonable in the beginning.

If there is only one service, traffic is moderate, the backend is also only one instance, and the requirements for traffic distribution and resilience are still low, then adding a separate reverse proxy or load balancer may simply introduce unnecessary complexity too early.

Here is a short guide to the situations where this model usually still looks appropriate:

A single public VM works well where the application is still simple in its own right and does not require separate publication logic. Setting up something like Nginx right away as both a web server and a proxy on the same VM is not a mistake, but it is not always strictly necessary from the beginning either.

But this approach reaches its limit fairly quickly.

As soon as you need to hide the backend from direct external access, terminate TLS separately, expose specific endpoints only to certain network segments, proxy several services through one entry point, or prepare the way for a more flexible design, then one VM starts to fall short as a complete external layer.

That is exactly the point where the logic for a reverse proxy begins to appear.

Reverse Proxy: When the Application Already Needs a Separate Ingress Layer

In this model, the user does not connect directly to the backend, but to a separate ingress layer that accepts the request and then forwards it onward. This approach is commonly used for TLS termination, routing, hiding internal services, publishing several applications through one entry point, and organizing external access more cleanly.

The main value of a reverse proxy is that it separates the external entry point from the application itself.

That gives you more control over how exactly the application is exposed to the outside world.

Here is a short guide to the situations where this approach usually makes sense:

The main principle that follows from this is simple: a reverse proxy is a good fit where the application already needs a separate publication layer, but full traffic distribution across several backends is not yet the primary task.

EU Cloud Infrastructure You Control

Run production workloads on dedicated resources across EU data centres. Transparent pricing, no hidden costs. Full control over compute, storage, and networking.

Explore Infrastructure

Predictable Virtual Machines for Production

Dedicated vCPUs, consistent performance, no noisy neighbours. Deploy and scale VMs in minutes. Full root access, fixed pricing.

View VM Plans

Up to €22,000 to Migrate Your Workloads

Cut OPEX when migrating to EU infrastructure. Get migration support, cost assessment, and infrastructure credits with no upfront commitment.

Apply for Bonus

Kubernetes with Full Control

Deploy production-ready clusters with control over node configuration, storage, and networking. Predictable costs and direct access to infrastructure.

Deploy Cluster

At the same time, it is important not to confuse a reverse proxy with a load balancer.

A reverse proxy can simply be an ingress layer in front of one backend. A load balancer is the next step, where incoming traffic must not only be accepted and proxied, but also distributed across several instances, account for their state, and survive the failure of individual nodes. It is no coincidence that AWS ELB is built around exactly this logic: one entry point that distributes traffic across healthy targets.

Load Balancer: When One Publication Point Is No Longer Enough

A load balancer becomes necessary when the application has outgrown the need for just one tidy ingress layer.

If there are several backends, the load needs to be distributed between them, and the design itself has to survive the failure of individual nodes, then one reverse proxy or one public VM is often no longer enough. In that situation, incoming traffic must not only be accepted, but also directed toward healthy instances so that the application can keep working under both growing load and partial failure.

Here is a short guide to when this approach usually makes sense:

If there is only one backend, traffic is moderate, and there is no real need yet to distribute load across several machines, a load balancer can easily turn into extra complexity. It may still be useful as preparation for future growth, but if that growth exists only in theory for now, the design risks becoming heavier without delivering much visible practical value.

That is exactly why the next useful step is no longer to argue about “which one is better in general,” but to calmly place all three approaches into one picture and look at where the practical boundary of choice actually lies between them.

How Not to Get the Choice Wrong in Practice

After looking at all three options, the real difficulty is usually no longer remembering the names, but avoiding the mistake of assembling the publication model “by instinct.”

The same errors repeat all the time.

A single backend stays on a public VM for years, even though the application has long needed a separate ingress layer. A reverse proxy gets deployed simply because “that’s the proper way,” even though there is still no real task for it to solve. And a load balancer appears too early just because it looks more mature, even though there is still only one backend and no actual traffic distribution happening in practice.

It is more useful to look not at how serious the term sounds, but at what job the external layer really needs to do.

The first quick split looks like this:

That already gives a useful framework.

But the second question matters just as much: what exactly should happen to the traffic after it reaches the external entry point?

If external traffic simply arrives at one server and is processed there, an extra layer can easily turn into exactly that — just an extra layer.

A separate ingress layer starts bringing real value in another situation: when you need TLS termination, routing by host or path, publication of several services through one entry point, or a way to hide the backend from direct exposure. That is where a reverse proxy stops looking like “extra complexity” and starts looking like a normal working tool.

Then comes the next level. When there are already several backends and the external layer must not only accept requests but also send them only to healthy instances, the logic shifts toward a load balancer.

This can be reduced to one more short table:

Both tables lead to one practical idea: what matters is not only where the application is published, but what level of logic is needed between the Internet and the backend.

In practice, the sequence is usually quite simple.

First, understand how many backends you actually have. Then decide whether the application needs a separate ingress layer at all. Only after that should you choose between one public VM, a reverse proxy, and a load balancer.

The short rule of thumb looks like this:

• One public VM — when the application is still very simple
• Reverse Proxy — when a separate external layer is already needed
• Load Balancer — when traffic must be distributed across several backends

Do not choose the model “for future growth” too early. Choose the external layer that the application actually needs right now.

Conclusion

In the end, the choice between one public VM, a reverse proxy, and a load balancer rarely comes down to the question of “which one is better in general.”

In practice, it is a choice between three different levels of the external layer. One is suitable for simply publishing a single service. Another provides a separate entry point with TLS handling and routing. The third is needed where there are already several backends, traffic distribution, and stronger requirements for resilience.

Do not try to guess the “grown-up” architecture too early.

It is much better to choose the external layer that genuinely solves the application’s current problem. That is exactly how the publication model stays understandable, avoids becoming overloaded before its time, and still leaves room for growth later.

FAQ

Is one public VM always bad practice?

No. For a small application with one backend and moderate traffic, it can be a perfectly reasonable starting point. Problems usually begin not because of the VM itself, but because the design has already outgrown that model while the external layer has not changed with it.

Are a reverse proxy and a load balancer the same thing?

Not exactly. A reverse proxy can simply act as an HTTP(S) ingress layer in front of one backend, while a load balancer adds traffic distribution across multiple instances and works with their health state. Some cloud and software solutions combine both roles, but the underlying logic of the tasks is still different.

If there is only one backend, is a load balancer already unnecessary?

Often yes. It can still be used as preparation for future growth or for certain specific features, but if there is nothing to distribute traffic across yet, its practical value is usually limited.

Is a reverse proxy only useful for multiple services?

No. It can also be useful in front of a single application — for example, for TLS termination, one unified entry point, routing, or to avoid exposing the backend directly to the outside world.

Can you start with one public VM and later move to a reverse proxy or load balancer?

Yes, and that is a very normal path. For many projects, this is exactly how the architecture grows: first a simple publication model, then a separate ingress layer, and only after that traffic distribution across multiple backends.

Sources

1. Google Cloud — Cloud Load Balancing overview

2. AWS — How Elastic Load Balancing works

3. Azure — What is Azure Application Gateway?