TL;DR
-
Abstract Factory is a higher-level pattern built on top of Factory Method.
-
Factory Method is just one piece in the Abstract Factory toolkit.
-
Factory Method = a single tool.
-
Abstract Factory = a coordinated toolbox of creation strategies.
The Factory Method and Abstract Factory patterns are very similar — they’re easy to confuse but confusing them leads to either bloated complexity or broken consistency.
They’re both creational design patterns that help with object creation without specifying exact classes. But their power lies in different levels of abstraction.
The first question came to my mind when I learned about Factory Method and Abstract Factory design patterns, was:
Can't we always go with the Abstract Factory even if we only have one type of thing, because maybe someday in future we might need to add another type of related thing?
Build for today. Refactor for tomorrow.
Engineering Discipline = Resisting the What if trap. You’re not rewarded for guessing the future — you’re rewarded for building code that’s clear, testable, and adaptable when the future arrives.
🧠 Core Difference:
-
Factory Method: Creates one kind of product.
-
Abstract Factory: Creates families of related products (i.e., multiple kinds that are meant to work together).
Factory Method
✅ Use Factory Method when:
You have a single product type to produce, and its creation varies by context (e.g., OS/platform).
Rust example:
You want to create a Button, and that's it — just different for Mac and Windows.
trait Button {
fn click(&self);
}
struct MacButton;
impl Button for MacButton {
fn click(&self) { println!("Mac Button clicked!"); }
}
struct WinButton;
impl Button for WinButton {
fn click(&self) { println!("Windows Button clicked!"); }
}
trait ButtonCreator {
fn create_button(&self) -> Box<dyn Button>;
}
struct MacButtonCreator;
impl ButtonCreator for MacButtonCreator {
fn create_button(&self) -> Box<dyn Button> {
Box::new(MacButton)
}
}
struct WinButtonCreator;
impl ButtonCreator for WinButtonCreator {
fn create_button(&self) -> Box<dyn Button> {
Box::new(WinButton)
}
}
💡 Only one product (Button) is involved.
Abstract Factory
Instead of scattering logic for each product, one factory keeps product creation cohesive and consistent.
When you need multiple, coordinated product types (e.g., Button, Checkbox, Dropdown) — all belonging to the same "theme" or "family".
Rust example:
You’re designing an entire GUI — the Button, Checkbox, and Dropdown must match in style per platform.
trait Button { fn click(&self); }
trait Checkbox { fn toggle(&self); }
struct MacButton; impl Button for MacButton {
fn click(&self) { println!("Mac Button clicked!"); }
}
struct MacCheckbox; impl Checkbox for MacCheckbox {
fn toggle(&self) { println!("Mac Checkbox toggled!"); }
}
trait GUIFactory {
fn create_button(&self) -> Box<dyn Button>;
fn create_checkbox(&self) -> Box<dyn Checkbox>;
}
struct MacFactory;
impl GUIFactory for MacFactory {
fn create_button(&self) -> Box<dyn Button> {
Box::new(MacButton)
}
fn create_checkbox(&self) -> Box<dyn Checkbox> {
Box::new(MacCheckbox)
}
}
💡 All created elements are stylistically related and meant to be used together.
Interchangeability
Why we Can’t Swap Them?
Factory Method can't replace Abstract Factory: You’d need multiple separate creators. No guarantee their products match in theme/style.
Abstract Factory is overkill for a single product: You're paying for future-proofing that might never be needed.
Visual Distinction
These ASCII diagrams highlight where each pattern shines — and where it breaks.
Factory Method — One Product
Button (Product)
▲
┌─────┴─────┐
MacButton WinButton
ButtonCreator (Creator)
▲
┌─────────┴─────────┐
MacCreator WinCreator
Client uses one creator
Abstract Factory — Multiple Coordinated Products
Button (Product) Checkbox (Product)
▲ ▲
┌──────┴──────┐ ┌─────┴──────┐
MacButton WinButton MacCheckbox WinCheckbox
GUIFactory (Creator)
┌────────┴────────┐
MacFactory WinFactory
└── creates ─────────┘
[Button, Checkbox] ← grouped
Client depends on factory
to get all related widgets
Rule of Thumb
| Use Case | Factory Method | Abstract Factory |
|---|
| Only one kind of product | ✅ Yes | ❌ Overkill |
| Multiple coordinated product types | ❌ Can’t do | ✅ Yes |
| Adding new product families | 🔁 Easy | ✅ Easy |
| Adding new product types | ✴️ Hard | ✅ Easy |
Example Mapping
| Abstract Factory | Internally Uses |
|---|
create_button() → returns a Button | ✅ Factory Method |
create_checkbox() → returns a Checkbox | ✅ Factory Method |
create_slider() → returns a Slider | ✅ Factory Method |
Each method is a Factory Method, but the Abstract Factory binds them together so the client always gets products that match — e.g., Mac-styled UI components, not a WinButton + MacCheckbox mix.
Key Takeaway
If you only ever need one kind of thing, stop at Factory Method.
But if you ever need to guarantee consistency across multiple UI components or products, you must go up to Abstract Factory.