I keep running into this on real projects, so here is my current thinking.
The implementation layer nobody blogs about after the architecture choice is made: tenant context lost in queued jobs, cache key collisions, global scopes silently missing on raw queries, and per-tenant migration runs. Each pitfall paired with a tested guard (stancl/tenancy idioms plus Pest assertions).
The short version
The honest answer depends on your context — team size, existing stack, and how much of the problem is really technology versus process. But the pattern I see repeatedly: start from the business constraint, not the tool. If you are researching laravel multi tenancy pitfalls, the framing below is the one I use with my own clients.
How I approach it
- Name the constraint first — cost, speed, compliance, or maintainability — and let it drive the architecture.
- Prefer boring, proven building blocks; spend novelty budget only where it buys a real advantage.
- Measure before and after. If a change cannot show up in a number, it is a matter of taste, not engineering.
You can see how this philosophy plays out across my Laravel work.
A full write-up of this topic is in progress — this is the working summary. Want a second opinion on your setup? Let's talk.