Anyone looking to automate transport tasks in their warehouse will quickly encounter the question of AMR vs. AGV: Autonomous Mobile Robots (AMRs) on the one hand, and Automated Guided Vehicles (AGVs) on the other. The difference may sound technical at first, but it has direct implications for investment costs, operational flexibility, and when a system truly pays for itself. This article explains the key differences, outlines the honest advantages and disadvantages of both approaches, and helps you find the right technology for your specific situation.
What is an AGV – and how does it navigate?
An automated guided vehicle (AGV) moves goods along predefined routes. Navigation is achieved using physical or digital aids: induction loops in the floor, magnetic strips, floor markers (QR codes), or fixed rails. The system "knows" its way through this infrastructure – not through its own perception of its surroundings.
What this means in practice:
Routes must be defined before commissioning and physically adjusted if changes occur.
Obstacles on the route cannot be autonomously avoided; the system stops.
– High reliability on known routes in stable environments.
– Proven in series production, automotive industry, heavy intralogistics.
AGV systems have been established and well-proven for decades. They are suitable wherever routes remain constant, the infrastructure is set up only once, and reliability is more important than flexibility.
What is an AMR – and what fundamentally distinguishes it?
An Autonomous Mobile Robot (AMR) navigates without fixed infrastructure. It uses sensors (typically LiDAR) to create a map of its surroundings, plans routes independently, and adjusts them in real time if people, other robots, or obstacles are in its way.
Key differences compared to AGVs:
– No floor markings or induction loops required.
– Routes can be changed via software, without any structural modifications.
– Collision avoidance through in-house sensors.
– The map and routing can be adapted to changing warehouse layouts.
AMRs are the newer technology. Due to decreasing hardware costs and improved software, they are now also accessible to medium-sized businesses. Transport robot area Today, it encompasses a wide range of AMR models, built for different payloads and deployment scenarios.
Navigation in direct comparison
| feature | AGV/AGV | AMR |
|---|---|---|
| Navigation type | Infrastructure-related (lane, marker) | Autonomous map (LiDAR, SLAM) |
| Obstacle reaction | Stop | Evasive maneuver or neurorouting |
| Change of route | Physical modifications required | Software-based fleet management |
| mapping | None (infrastructure is the map) | Automatically on first use |
| Environmental tolerance | Stable, controlled environment | Even dynamic environments |
SLAM (Simultaneous Localization and Mapping) is the method by which modern AMRs perceive their environment and orient themselves within it. It works without external reference points and makes AMRs independent of ground conditions or installation work.
Infrastructure and installation costs
This is one of the biggest practical differences between the two technologies.
FTS: Before commissioning, routes must be planned, marked, and partially constructed. This is a one-time project – but a complex one. Every route change requires further construction work. In warehouses that rarely change, this is hardly noticeable. In more dynamic environments, however, it is a real disadvantage.
AMR: The robot makes a single trip through the warehouse and creates its map. Afterward, routes, stopping points, and missions can be defined via software. No ground crew is needed, and no reconfiguration is required for the next layout change. This makes AMR a better choice for companies that regularly adjust their layout or where it's not yet clear what their processes will look like in two years.
flexibility and scalability
AMRs are generally easier to scale: Another vehicle is added to the fleet management software, routes are assigned, and that's it. Multiple AMRs share the map and coordinate via a central fleet management software.
AGVs can also be expanded – but each new route requires additional infrastructure. This makes rapid scaling slower and more expensive.
Another flexibility factor: AMRs can operate in mixed environments with people. The sensors detect people and move out of the way. This allows operation without barriers, which is a practical advantage in many warehouses.
Typical application scenarios
FTS is well suited for:
– High-volume production lines with fixed routes (e.g., automotive suppliers)
– Heavy loads (several tons) that AMR cannot handle
– Environments where absolute positional precision is required
– Companies that invest once and then operate consistently for decades
AMR is well suited for:
– Warehouses with changing layouts or seasonal adjustments
– Existing building without conversion potential
– Entry-level projects with pilot logic (1–2 robots, then expand)
– Companies that want to use RaaS (Robot-as-a-Service)
Im SEBOTICS Logistics portfolio AMR solutions such as the AutoXing Juno series and the T300 are available, designed for classic intralogistics tasks: tabletop transport (JunoBot AX6113), autonomous lifting of trolleys (Juno Lift) or heavy goods up to around 300 kg (T300).
Cost logic: What is really more expensive
The purchase price alone says little. What matters are the total costs over the useful life.
FTS: Often cheaper hardware per vehicle, but higher installation costs. Route changes cost money each time. Attractive in the long term with stable, predictable processes.
AMR: Higher acquisition costs per unit than simple AGVs, but no infrastructure costs. Faster commissioning, lower modification costs. Attractive for dynamic environments and operations starting with a pilot project.
Both technologies are also available as RaaS – this means monthly operating costs instead of investment, which lowers entry barriers and conserves capital.
For a realistic cost and ROI assessment, it is worthwhile to take an early look at the operating costs, not just the list price. SEBOTICS accompanies this process from site survey through pilot to rollout, without manufacturer affiliation.
Decision aid: AMR or FTS?
No technology is universally better. The right choice depends on your business.
Choose FTS if:
– Their routes remain constant over years
– You move very heavy loads (well over 300 kg)
– Highest positional precision is required on a fixed track
– You prefer an established, proven technology with a broad market offering
Choose AMR if:
– Your layout changes, or you don't know exactly what it will be today
– You want to start quickly and scale gradually
– You work in an existing building without any renovations
Flexible deployment areas (multiple buildings, changing missions) are required.
– You prefer RaaS as a model
In many companies, a combination of systems makes sense: AGVs for fixed heavy-load routes, and AMRs for flexible distribution tasks. The right mix results from an honest analysis of the current processes.
FAQ
What is the main difference between AMR and FTS?
AMRs navigate autonomously using sensors (LiDAR, SLAM) without fixed infrastructure. AGVs follow predefined tracks or markings on the floor. AMRs are more flexible, while AGVs are more reliable on stable routes.
Can an AMR also transport heavy loads?
Modern AMRs like the T300 are designed for loads up to around 300 kg. For significantly heavier goods (e.g., pallets weighing one ton or more), specialized AGVs or forklift-mounted AMRs are the better choice.
Do I still need to make any modifications for AMR?
Generally, no. AMRs map their surroundings independently. Charging stations can be installed for certain models – but this is significantly less complex than the infrastructure of a traditional AGV.
How much does an AMR system cost compared to an AGV?
It's impossible to give a general answer, as total costs depend heavily on payload, number of vehicles, integration effort, and service model. A site survey with a specific needs analysis provides more reliable figures than any list price.
How long does it take to put an AMR into operation?
AMRs can generally be put into operation much faster than AGVs, as no infrastructure needs to be installed. A first pilot system can often be operational within a few days of delivery.
Next Step
If you would like to specifically examine which technology – AMR, AGV or a combination – suits your processes, please talk to us. SEBOTICS conducts a site survey, assesses your requirements in a vendor-neutral manner, and recommends a pilot setup that minimizes investment risks.