The difference between an AGV and an AMR is how it navigates. An AGV (automated guided vehicle) follows a fixed, pre-defined guide path — a wire, magnetic tape or markers — and stops when the path is blocked. An AMR (autonomous mobile robot) builds and reads a map of its surroundings, plans its own route, and re-plans in real time to drive around people and obstacles.
What each term means
AGV — automated guided vehicle.The older and broader of the two categories. An AGV moves goods along a guide path that is physically installed in or on the floor: a buried wire, magnetic tape, a painted line read by a camera, or reflective markers a laser locks onto. The vehicle is “guided” in the literal sense — it follows the infrastructure it is given.
AMR — autonomous mobile robot.The newer category. An AMR carries a map of the building (or builds one as it goes) and works out where it is within that map using onboard sensors. From a start and a goal it computes its own route and, crucially, changes that route on the fly when something is in the way. It is “autonomous” in the sense that the decisions about how to get there are made on the robot.
The core distinction: guided path vs free navigation
Strip away the marketing and the whole comparison comes down to one question: does the robot follow a path you install, or does it figure out the path itself? An AGV is deterministic and constrained — it does exactly what the guide path allows, which makes it predictable and simple, but inflexible. An AMR is adaptive — it senses, decides and re-plans, which makes it flexible and resilient to change, at the cost of more sophisticated sensing and software.
Everything else — obstacle handling, commissioning effort, how hard it is to change a route — flows from that single distinction.
AGV vs AMR at a glance
| AGV | AMR | |
|---|---|---|
| Navigation | Fixed guide path — wire, magnetic tape or markers | Free, map-based — builds and reads a map of the space |
| Path flexibility | Runs only where the path is laid | Plans and changes its own route on the fly |
| Obstacle handling | Stops and waits when the path is blocked | Detects and drives around obstacles, then re-plans |
| Floor infrastructure | Usually requires wires, tape or reflectors | No fixed floor infrastructure needed |
| Commissioning | Tied to laying and maintaining the guide path | Mapping-based, typically faster to change or expand |
| Layout changes | Re-routing means re-laying infrastructure | Re-mapping in software, no physical re-work |
| Best fit | High-volume, fixed, predictable point-to-point flows | Dynamic, mixed or evolving environments |
This is a category-level contrast. Individual products blur the lines, and many vendors offer machines that sit somewhere between the two.
It's a spectrum, not a binary
In practice AGV and AMR are the two ends of a spectrum rather than two sealed boxes. Some “AGVs” now add limited obstacle avoidance; some “AMRs” are deliberately constrained to virtual lanes for safety and throughput. A useful mental model is to ask how much of the route is fixed in advance and how much is decided live — the more decided live, the further toward the AMR end a machine sits.
This is why an autonomous forklift can be described as either: it depends on whether it follows guide paths or maps and re-routes freely. The companion guide on how autonomous forklifts work explains the free-navigation approach in detail.
When each is the better fit
Choose an AGV-style approach when flows are simple, fixed and high-volume, the layout is stable, and the route rarely changes — for example a constant shuttle between two fixed points. The predictability and lower per-unit complexity can be ideal.
Choose an AMR-style approach when the environment is dynamic or shared with people, the layout evolves, you expect to expand or re-route, or you simply cannot lay floor infrastructure. The ability to re-map in software rather than re-lay tape is often the deciding factor.
And remember you do not have to choose just one. Mixed fleets are common, and open protocols such as VDA5050 allow a single fleet manager to coordinate both categories — and machines from multiple vendors — in one building.
Frequently asked questions
What is the main difference between an AGV and an AMR?+
The core difference is navigation. An AGV follows a fixed, pre-defined guide path such as a wire, magnetic tape or markers and stops if the path is blocked. An AMR builds and reads a map of the space, plans its own route, and re-plans live to drive around people and obstacles.
Is an AMR better than an AGV?+
Neither is universally better — they suit different problems. AGVs excel at simple, high-volume, fixed point-to-point flows in stable layouts. AMRs suit dynamic, mixed or changing environments where flexibility and obstacle avoidance matter more than the lowest possible unit cost.
Can AGVs and AMRs work together in the same warehouse?+
Yes. Many sites run mixed fleets, and open standards such as VDA5050 let robots from different categories and vendors be coordinated by a single fleet manager, so AGVs and AMRs can share a building and a control layer.
Is an autonomous forklift an AGV or an AMR?+
It can be either, depending on how it navigates. A forklift that follows fixed guide paths behaves as an AGV; one that maps the space and re-routes freely behaves as an AMR. Many modern autonomous forklifts use free, map-based navigation, placing them on the AMR end of the spectrum.
Work out which fits your site
The right answer depends on your flows, layout and how much they change. A free FlyWei site survey maps your real movement patterns and recommends the right mix — explore the range or talk to an engineer.