In the logistics field, Automated Guided Vehicles (AGV) and Autonomous Mobile Robots (AMR) are well-known terms. AGV and AMR both automate material handling, optimizing efficiency and productivity in warehouses and manufacturing facilities. As more and more companies increase their investment in supply chain automation, it is essential to understand the differences between these two technologies to ensure wise investment decisions.
AGV are industrial vehicles that transport goods in warehouses or manufacturing facilities. Traditionally, they are guided by magnets, barcodes, beacons, or wires embedded in the facility surfaces. They operate based on pre-programmed software, typically traveling along fixed routes and stopping when encountering obstacles on their path.
AMR is a technology that emerged after AGV, using sensors, processors, and navigation algorithms to move in warehouses or facilities without the need for physical guidance. They can read the environment and dynamically plan their route. They do not have to follow fixed routes and can use internal maps to avoid obstacles.
Fundamentally, the difference between AGV and AMR boils down to their level of intelligence.AGV and AMR both achieve a certain level of automation, but AGV can only follow pre-assigned routes, execute basic commands, and avoid collisions. When faced with new or unexpected situations, AGV cannot adapt as flexibly as AMR. In terms of learning and adapting to new situations, such as replanning routes after encountering obstacles, and using these experiences to become more efficient and accurate over time (i.e., machine learning), AMR excels over AGV.
A careful examination of AGV and AMR reveals 7 key differences that companies should highly consider before deciding to invest in either technology.
AGV: Require infrastructure such as electromagnetic lines, RFID, beacons, laser guidance, or magnetic tape to enable vehicles to move independently.
AMR: Use trackless navigation through internal maps and sensors.
AGV: Adding new routes or destinations is very complex and expensive.
AMR: Capable of quickly learning new routes, taking optimal paths, additional AMR can be added to existing fleets in less than a day.
AGV: As a relatively less advanced technology, it is often a cheaper option.
AMR: Despite potentially being more expensive than AGV, it is still a cost-effective choice due to quick, easy deployment without downtime and without infrastructure costs.
AGV: More reliable than AMR due to the nature of following rigid paths.
AMR: Real-time responses to its environment can lead to variations in expected movements.
AGV: Installation is slow and complex since infrastructure is set up throughout the facility, unable to adapt to new environments without new infrastructure.
AMR: Installation and redeployment are quick and easy as no significant infrastructure is needed, can be repositioned as shared resources between facilities.
Companies should invest in AGV and AMR that comply with their respective safety standards, but the following points can be considered.
AGV: Due to its predictability, it will not continue forward when encountering obstacles.
AMR: AMR Route replanning may inadvertently disrupt other parts of the environment.
AGV: Does not collect or learn from past data, lacks insights into fleet performance.
AMR: Be able to use machine learning to collect relevant data and optimize fleet operations.
After understanding these differences, now might be the time to choose between AGV and AMR. To aid in your decision, here are some suggestions.
If your business relies on traditional business models and has simple, infrequently changing operational workflows, AGV may still be a good choice as they get the job done and are relatively more economical in the market. However, if you are transitioning your business to a flexible one aimed at dynamically responding to demand changes, production line modifications, and complex new manufacturing environments, then AMR is the better choice due to its intelligent technology and flexible deployment.
中文
日本語
