AMR vs. AGV: choosing the right platform for your floor

The most common question we get from operations evaluating automation for the first time isn't "which brand should I buy" — it's "do I need an AMR or an AGV." The two terms get used interchangeably in marketing material, but the underlying navigation approach is different enough that it changes the economics of your project.

An AGV (automated guided vehicle) follows a fixed or virtual path — a wire in the floor, magnetic tape, or a pre-mapped route — with high positional accuracy and repeatability. It goes where it's told, the same way, every time.

An AMR (autonomous mobile robot) navigates using onboard sensors, cameras, and mapping software (typically SLAM — simultaneous localization and mapping). It builds an understanding of its environment in real time and can reroute around obstacles or changed layouts without reprogramming a path.

AGVs tend to win on precision, throughput consistency, and lower per-unit cost for very high-volume, stable routes — think a production line where the same pallet moves between the same two points thousands of times a day.

AMRs tend to win on flexibility. If your SKU mix changes seasonally, your floor plan shifts as you add racking or reconfigure zones, or you're rolling out automation in phases and don't want to commit to fixed infrastructure, the adaptability of an AMR usually outweighs the small precision trade-off.

Don't start with the equipment. Start with how often your facility's layout and process actually change. A distribution center with quarterly reconfigurations and a stable high-volume production line have almost opposite answers to this question, even if their throughput numbers look similar on paper.

In practice, many facilities end up running both — AGVs for the stable, high-frequency backbone routes and AMRs for the more variable tasks around them, coordinated through a shared fleet management layer. That's a legitimate answer, not a compromise, and it's one we design toward often.